Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles PDF

Claus Weiland
Aerodynamic
Data
of Space
Vehicles
123
Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles
Claus Weiland
Aerodynamic Data
of Space Vehicles
ABC
Dr. Ing. Claus Weiland

83052 Bruckmhl
Fhrenstr.90
Germany
E-mail: claus.weiland@t-online.de
ISBN 978-3-642-54167-4
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1
ISBN 978-3-642-54168-1
(eBook)
Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014930025
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any
errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
for Silvia
Preface
Since their appearance on the Earth men have thought about the environment, in which they live. Over a long period of time they asked of what
nature the movement of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the stars is.
The outcome was that up to the fteenth century the geocentric world view
(the Aristotelian system1 ) with the Earth at the center was the matter of
common knowledge. Then with the observations and cognitions of Nikolaus
Kopernikus (1473 1543) and Galileo Galilei (1564 1642) a new world view
was constructed and introduced, the so called heliocentric system (Copernican system) with the Sun at its center.
The description of our planetary system with the Sun at its center is
true up to the present. It can be conjectured that the people also believed
at that time that all the other stars circuit the Sun. Further observations,
however, have brought the awareness that there exist a tremendous number
of other planetary systems forming galaxies and further that a large number
of galaxies form the universe. This means the Earth is only a very small
particle in the universe and this is true also for our planetary system.
N. Kopernikus and G. Galilei have created a model of the kinematic movement of the planets in our planetary system, but they did not know, if there
exist laws, which mathematically describe the mechanics of the motion of
planets. This gap was lled by the work of Johannes Kepler (1571 1630).
His three laws are fundamental down to the present day for the understanding of orbital movement of planets in a planetary system. But on the other
hand this wonderful work was also not able to explain why the planets move
along such orbits, which means to identify and describe the forces which are
acting on the masses in the universe.
The fundamental step, by which the discipline of mechanics was borne,
made Isaac Newton (1643 1727). He formulated the three principles of
mechanics (inertia, action, reaction) and the law of gravitation. Since then
the motions of masses in gravitational elds can be predicted in the case
that the action (force) law2 , valid in an inertial coordinate system, can be
1
2
Aristotle: 384 - 322 B.C..

Force is equal to the product of mass times acceleration: F = m a.
VIII
Preface
transformed to the relevant non-inertial coordinate systems, which could be,

for example, either a ight path or a body-xed system3 .
Of course the determination of the motions of masses in gravitational elds
is not restricted to natural objects (stars, suns, planets, moons, etc.), but is
valid also for man-made bodies, like space vehicles (probes, capsules, winged
spacecrafts, etc.). With that the mechanics of space ight could be generated.
During the cold war humans began with the ight of man-made vehicles
into the space. The rst orbital4 ight of a space vehicle was accomplished
by the Soviet Union (Russia) with the launch of the SPUTNIK capsule in
1957.
Space vehicles in the frame of this book are atmospheric re-entry and entry
vehicles. Generally they are non-winged or winged re-entry vehicles. To them
come airbreathing hypersonic ight vehicles, either as Single-Stage-To-Orbit
(SSTO) space transportation systems or as the lower stages of Two-StageTo-Orbit (TSTO) systems.
Although the ight of space vehicles began in the second half of the 1950s,
design and operational experience and data of the vehicles under consideration are scarce compared to that of aircraft. There an abundance of data
is available for the designer of a new aircraft and also for the student of
aeronautics. The approach to a new design is always made in view of former approaches, simply in order to reduce technical and operational risks.
If, however, a large technological step is to be performed, the risks must be
taken. Experimental vehicles can be a step in between, like the well-known
X-planes of the USA.
Regarding space vehicles, exactly this situation is given. Several of the
X-planes were and are experimental space vehicles. The experience gained
with them, however, led only to a few operational capsules and vehicles, in
particular APOLLO, SOYUZ and the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. Not only
the classical spacefaring nations, the USA and the Soviet Union (Russia), but
also other nations did at least extended technological and project work on
capsules, winged re-entry vehicles and also airbreathing systems.
The total number of space plane studies, projects and operational vehicles
is not large. Related data is partly available, in particular of the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter. The Lessons Learned, published in 1983 by the NASA,
are an excellent and valuable example how experience can be conveyed to the
technical community at large.
Today, there are no real projects pursued for the development of new space
transportation systems. Probably we are in a transition phase. The author is
convinced that the time for new advanced space transportation systems will
come.
3
Of course, we consider only the classical mechanics, where due to the relatively
low velocities of the space vehicles, -compared to the speed of light-, relativistic
eects can be neglected.
Orbital space ight means that the vehicle is accelerated to the circular speed
necessary for the residence in an Earth orbit.
Preface
IX
This book presents a collection of aerodynamic data sets of non-winged reentry vehicles (RV-NW), winged re-entry vehicles (RV-W) and airbreathing
hypersonic ight vehicles (CAV). Some of the data were freely available,
several were made available by the originators, and a lot of them stem from
the work of the author and his colleagues. He has worked for almost three
and a half decades in the aerospace eld at an university, a research institute
and in industry. He was involved in a lot of programs, projects, technology
studies and scientic works mostly with emphasis on space applications.
The book is written for graduate and doctoral students, as well as design
and development engineers, in particular when the latter are going to start
with new projects and need support and a guideline for the rst congurational and aerodynamic design approach.
January 24, 2014
Claus Weiland
Acknowledgements
The author is much indebted to his colleagues E.H. Hirschel, who read several
times all the chapters of the book, and W. Staudacher, who read parts of the
book. Their suggestions and input were highly appreciated and have denitely
enhanced the readability of the book.
Further the author wishes to thank S. Borrelli, K. Bosselmann, A. G
ulhan,
J.M.A. Longo, W. Schroder, who have made available the aerodynamic data
sets of several space vehicles and some other material.
Last but not least I wish to thank my wife for her support and patience.
Claus Weiland
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Short Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Milestones of Space Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 The Contents of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
4
6
7
The Discipline Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Steady or Unsteady Aerothermodynamics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Aerodynamic Coecients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Examples of Aerodynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 The SAENGER Vehicle (CAV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 The X-38 Vehicle (RV-W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 The PRORA Vehicle (RV-W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
9
10
11
16
16
18
19
21
Classification and Project Data of Space Vehicles . . . . . . .

3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Re-entry Vehicles - Non-winged (RV-NW): Space Probes
and Capsules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Re-entry Vehicles - Non-Winged (RV-NW): Cones and
Bicones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Re-entry Vehicles -Winged (RV-W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicles (CAV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
23
Aerodynamic Data of Non-Winged Re-entry Vehicles

(RV-NW) - Capsules and Probes - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 APOLLO (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Congurational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Aerodynamic Data of Steady Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3 Aerodynamic Data of Unsteady Motion . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.4 Peculiarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 SOYUZ (Russia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
30
33
37
39
41
41
43
43
44
48
49
51
51
XIV
Contents

4.3.4 Peculiarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 ARD (Aerodynamic Re-entry Demonstrator) (Europe) . . . . .
4.4.4 Peculiarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 HUYGENS (Cassini Orbiter) (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 BEAGLE2 (UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 OREX (Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.8 VIKING-Type (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9 CARINA (Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.10 AFE (Aeroassist Flight Experiment) (USA-Europe) . . . . . . . .
4.11 VIKING (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
53
57
58
58
58
61
61
66
66
66
69
70
70
71
75
76
76
77
79
80
80
81
95
96
96
98
100
101
102
103
108
111
111
112
117
118
Aerothermodynamic Data of Non-Winged Re-entry

Vehicles (RV-NW) - Cones and Bicones - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 BLUFF-BICONE (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
123
124
124
124
127
Contents
5.3 SLENDER-BICONE (Russia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.4 BENT-BICONE (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 COLIBRI (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 IRDT (Inatable Re-entry Demonstrator)
(Russia-Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 EXPERT (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Aerothermodynamic Data of Winged Re-entry Vehicles

(RV-W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 X-33 Vehicle (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 X-34 Vehicle (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 X-37 Vehicle (USA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.2 Aerodynamic Data of Steady and Unsteady
Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6 X-38 Vehicle (USA-Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XV
132
132
132
135
138
138
138
139
142
142
144
147
149
149
149
157
159
159
161
166
169
171
171
174
176
179
190
198
198
200
202
207
208
209
216
217
217
217
220
221
222
XVI
Contents

6.7 PHOENIX Demonstrator (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.9 Facetted DS6 Conguration (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.10 PRORA (Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.11 HERMES (Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
233
235
238
238
248
253
253
255
260
264
264
267
267
269
270
270
276
280
281
284
293
296
Aerothermodynamic Data of Cruise and Acceleration

Vehicles (CAV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 SAENGER (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 ELAC (Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
301
301
303
305
305
316
319
319
322
328
331
Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Appendix A : Wind Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Appendix B : Abbreviations, Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Introduction
Humans have started to capture the space after World War II. To leave the
Earth atmosphere and its gravitational eld requires an appropriate propulsion system, which is primarily up to these days given by rocket based systems. Further a ying device is needed, whereby men and payload can be
transported to space and back to the Earth surface. These devices are space
vehicles like probes, capsules and winged re-entry vehicles. The determination of the aerodynamics of such space vehicles is a challenging task and a
selection of results will be presented in this book.
1.1
Short Historical Overview
After World War II space transportation began in the late ftieth and the
early sixtieth of the last century in the Soviet Union (UdSSR) and the United
States of America (USA) and initially has used vehicles with very simple
shapes. When these countries started to transport men into space (suborbital)
or even into orbits of the Earth, the main challenge was to bring them back
to the Earths surface by a save re-entry process. At that time the selected
vehicles were very blunt and had an axisymmetric geometry. They performed
re-entries into the Earth atmosphere either by ballistic or low lift ights. The
nal approach towards the Earth surface was always initiated by parachute
systems. The landing process, which was not very comfortable for the crew
members, was conducted either at sea, for example the pacic ocean, or on
land supported by mechanical dampers, for example in the Kazakh desert.
These re-entry vehicles were called capsules. Later, when extra-terrestrial yby and entry missions came into play, for example to the planets Mercury,
Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Saturns moon Titan, etc., similar congurations, although unmanned, were taken into account. These vehicles are
called probes. Capsules and probes together with cones and bicones form the
group of non-winged re-entry vehicles (RV-NW).
For this group (RV-NW) we present in this book the aerodynamic data
sets of the nine capsules and probes: APOLLO, SOYUZ, ARD, BEAGLE2, OREX, VIKING-type, CARINA, AFE and VIKING (Chapter 4) and
the six cones and bicones: BLUFF-BICONE, SLENDER-BICONE, BENTBICONE, COLIBRI, IRDT and EXPERT (Chapter 5).
C. Weiland, Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_1,
1 Introduction
In the seventieth the question arose, whether the manned space transport
could be made cheaper (reduction of the cost per kg payload mass), more
comfortable for the crew and more reliable with respect to the terminal approach and landing process. The only answer at the time of these questions
was given through the development of a partly reusable and winged space
vehicle, the U.S. SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter1 .
Two of the above-mentioned improvements for the manned space transport
became true, but a reduction of the payload cost could not be achieved.
There were a lot of further projects and system studies worldwide at that
time aiming at the development of winged space ight and/or re-entry vehicles of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter-type, for example in
Japan
= HOPE-X,
USA
= X-33, X-34, X-37, etc.,
USA - Europe = X-38,
Europe
= HERMES, PHOENIX/HOPPER, etc..
However, up to now, none of these became operational. We call this group
of space planes winged re-entry vehicles (RV-W). The aerodynamic coefcients are presented for the ten RV-W vehicles: SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, PHOENIX, HOPE-X, Facetted Congurations,
PRORA and HERMES (Chapter 6).
In the ninetieth worldwide discussions took place to develop an advanced
space transportation system with the capabilities
to launch on demand,
of full reusability,
to start either vertically or horizontally and to land horizontally,
to reduce drastically the cost for transporting payload into space.
Detailed studies of such kind of systems were carried out, for example,
in the frame of the Future European Space Transportation Investigations
Program (FESTIP), [1]. There, a lot of Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) and
Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) systems were investigated and compared in order to
select the concept which would become technically feasible in the near
future,
identify the technology requirements for the realization of such a concept,
determine wether the concept would be economically viable.
SSTO concepts were studied, for example, in the U.K. with HOTOL and
in the U.S. with the NASP2 program3.
1
2
3
The UdSSR has developed some years later a very similar vehicle system, called
BURAN, which had own just one demonstration ight, before the project was
cancelled, due to technical and budgetary problems, [1].
NASP National Aerospace Plane.
The classication is sometimes not unique, so one could add also the X-33 vehicle
to this class!
1.1 Short Historical Overview
The TSTO systems consist in general of a lower stage, which transports

the upper stage to a certain altitude, where the stage separation takes place.
The lower stages are often hypersonic airplanes, propelled by a system of
airbreathing engines, as it was the case in the German SAENGER project
and the French STAR-H concept4 , [1]. The upper stages are SHUTTLE-like
orbiters propelled by rocket motors. The lower stages build the group of cruise
and acceleration vehicles (CAV), [2, 3]. The group of CAVs considered in this
book consists of the two vehicles SAENGER and ELAC (Chapter 7).
What is todays situation regarding the development of advanced space
transportation vehicles?
First, we should have in mind, that a lot of the global communication
systems, like television, mobile phones, internet data transfer, Earth observation including weather prediction, global positioning system etc., are based
on the elements of space transportation. These elements are satellites, capsules, space stations, winged space orbiters etc.. Most of them are launched
by rockets or rocket-like systems, which were developed essentially in the
seventieth and eightieth of the last century. The drawbacks of such systems
we have already discussed above.
On the other hand all the activities regarding the RV-Ws and CAVs listed
above were terminated or cancelled. Most of them due to budgetary reasons,
but also some of them simply because the technological barrier was too high.
Does that mean, that there is no necessity in the future for advanced space
transport systems in the sense discussed before? The answer is denitely no,
in particular with respect to the above-mentioned communication systems,
which have to be up-dated, serviced and repaired, and that needs man in
space, although robotic systems are advancing.
It seems that mankind always needs a period of consolidation after the
dramatic evolutions in areas of its daily life regarding technological, social,
commercial and political aspects. The evolutions are sometimes too fast, so
that people have problems to assimilate them. Likewise new movements in
space vehicle evolution will not occur soon, in particular when only the commercial success stands in the foreground. Nevertheless mens thirst for knowledge and their curiosity are strong incentives and the history has shown that
new evolutions will always come.
Approximately in the last twenty years there was no real (or industrial)
project pursued regarding the development of advanced space transportation
systems in the sense discussed above, despite the fact that some minor system
studies or demonstration activities, like the U.S. X-43 and X-51A scramjet
propulsion system tests, have taken place.
4
There were other concept studies of TSTO systems with CAV-type lower stages
like the French PREPHA study or MIGAKS of the Russian Oryol program.
But for these studies the author had neither information about the existence of
aerodynamic data nor any access to it.
1 Introduction
Obviously the time is not ripe for advanced systems. But the author believes in the sentence No idea is so powerful, then that, whose time has
come, and such an idea will come.
1.2
Milestones of Space Flight
The successful exploration of our planetary system requires more advanced

transport systems supplying near Earth space stations as outpost for manned
travel to other planets of our solar system and beyond.
It may be of interest to study the list below, where milestones5 of the exploration of space, conducted with manned or unmanned vehicles, since the
ftieth of the last century are summarized.
4. Oct.
1957 SPUTNIK 1: rst ight in an Earth orbit,
UdSSR,
1957 SPUTNIK 2: rst living creature,

the dog Laika in Earth orbit,
UdSSR,
3. Sept. 1959 LUNIK 2:
rst ight to the Moon, the

vehicle is shattered on its surface, UdSSR,
12. April 1961 WOSTOK 1: rst man in Earth orbit,

Juri Gagarin,
1962 MARINER 2: rst probe passing the planet
Venus,
2. March 1965
rst walk outside a capsule

in space, Alexej Leonow,
UdSSR,
USA,
UdSSR,
This is not a complete list of events, but reects the interest of the author.
1.2 Milestones of Space Flight
4. July
1965 MARINER 4:
15. Dec. 1966 LUNA9:
20. July 1969 APOLLO 11:
rst probe passing the planet

Mars,
USA,
ight to the Moon and rst

successful landing on its surface,
UdSSR,
rst man on the Moon,

Neil Armstrong,
USA,
15.Dec. 1970 VERENA 7:
ight to the planet Venus and rst

successful landing on its surface, UdSSR,
19. April 1971 SALJUT 1:
rst space station in Earth orbit, UdSSR,
3. Dec.
1973 PIONEER 10: rst probe passing the planet

Jupiter,
USA,
1974 MARINER 10: rst probe passing the planet

Mercury,
USA,
1. Sept. 1979 PIONEER 11: rst probe passing the planet

Saturn,
USA,
1981
1986 VOYAGER 2:
24. Aug. 1989 VOYAGER 3:
rst ight of a winged

space vehicle, the
SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter,
USA,

URANUS,
USA,

Neptun,
USA,
1997 PATHFINDER: ight to the planet Mars and rst

successful landing on its surface, USA,
Nov.
2000 ISS:
14. Jan. 2005 HUYGENS:
start of the installation of the

International Space Station ISS,
ight to planet Saturns moon
Titan and rst successful landing
on its surface,
Europe
1 Introduction
1.3
The Contents of the Book
The capacity and quality of the atmospheric ight performance of space ight
vehicles6 is characterized by the aerodynamic data bases. The tools to establish aerodynamic data bases are
semi-empirical design methods,

wind tunnel tests,
numerical simulations,
free ight tests.
The results of these tools are harmonized and consolidated and form the
aerodynamic data base. Of course the numerical simulations methods have
this role only since approximately twenty years.
A complete aerodynamic data base would encompass the coecients of the
static longitudinal and lateral motions and the related dynamic coecients
(Chapter 2). The whole data base has to be veried by free ight tests.
In this book the aerodynamics of 27 vehicles are considered. Only a few
of them did really y. Therefore the aerodynamic data bases are often not
complete, in particular when the projects or programs were more or less
abruptly stopped, often due to political decisions. Then, during the run-down
phases the interests of the engineers involved are often strongly reduced. A
proper reporting of the actual status of the projects usually does not take
place, which concerns also the aerodynamic data bases.
Congurational design studies or the development of demonstrators usually happen with reduced or incomplete aerodynamic data sets. Therefore
some data sets base just on the application of one or two of the above mentioned tools, either semi-empirical design methods, wind tunnel tests or numerical simulations. In so far a high percentage of the data presented here is
incomplete and would have to be veried.
Flight mechanics needs the aerodynamic coecients as function of a lot of
variables (in general more then ten), [4]. The allocation of the aerodynamic
coecients for a particular ight operation at a specic trajectory point is
conducted by an aerodynamic model. The establishment of such models is
described in Chapter 2.
A summary of the vehicles considered in this book is given in Chapter 3.
Chapters 4 to 7 give the data sets of the dierent vehicle classes.
Finally, Chapter 8 deals with the denitions of the various coordinate
systems used for the dierent vehicle types presented in the related chapters.
Of course, that is true for all aerospace vehicles.
References
References
1. Kuczera, H., Sacher, P.: Reusable Space Transportation Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
2. Hirschel, E.H.: Basics of Aerothermodynamics, vol. 204. Springer, Heidelberg;
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. AIAA, Reston (2004)
3. Hirschel, E.H., Weiland, C.: Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of
Hypersonic Flight Vehicles, vol. 229. Springer, Heidelberg; Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. AIAA, Reston (2009)
4. Weiland, C.: Computational Space Flight Mechanics. Springer, Heidelberg
(2010)
The Discipline Aerodynamics
The ight performance of any ying object (airplanes, spaceplanes, space vehicles, etc.) is primarily determined by their aerodynamic behavior. In general the mission of ight vehicles ascertain the congurational shape and
with that the aerodynamics during ight. We therefore deal now with the
discipline aerodynamics.
2.1
Introduction
The main task of this book is to present the aerodynamic data bases of 27
space vehicles. When we talk about space vehicles we have to be aware, that
only three of them (category one) were really operational, namely the capsules
APOLLO and SOYUZ and the winged re-entry vehicle SPACE SHUTTLE
Orbiter1 . All the other congurations and shapes have either demonstrator
status (category two) or were only technology and systems studies (category
three). Most of the vehicles of the second category have undertaken just one
demonstration ight (or mission), while the third category encompasses only
paper work and ground based experimental investigations.
Nevertheless, there are candidates of the third category, like HERMES,
where the aerodynamic data have a well substantiated status. This is due
to the fact that extensive experimental and numerical work was performed
by the European industrial companies, research institutes and universities
involved in the program.
When we talk about a classical aerodynamic data base, for example for
civil or military aircraft, we are aware that the coecients of the forces and
moments are completely driven by uid mechanical eects. This is true for vehicle speeds up to Mach numbers around 3. Beyond this edge thermodynamic
eects come into play.
When vehicles y beyond M 3 actually an aerothermodynamic data
base is established, which consists normally of aerodynamic coecients, temperatures and heat uxes in particular at the vehicles surface. The temperature and heat ux distributions at the vehicles surface are called thermal
loads.
1
Of course, there are space probes, like HUYGENS or VIKING, which have been
developed and built for just one or two missions.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_2,
10
2 The Discipline Aerodynamics
In this book we only consider the aerodynamic coecients, although one

should properly call them aerothermodynamic coecients. In the following
we will explain why.
As already mentioned when ight Mach numbers exceed the value of
M 3, thermodynamic eects come into the game the stronger as the
speed increases. In the following we explain what physically happens, when
the vehicle speed arrives at hypersonic Mach numbers, and what that means
for the aerodynamic coecients.
As is well known space vehicles ying with Mach numbers larger than one
generate so-called bow shocks which are normally detached, because such
vehicles have in general blunt noses. With increasing Mach number the temperature in the air between the bow shock and the vehicle surface grows
dramatically. This leads to the situation that the air loses its ideal behavior
and so-called thermodynamic eects (hot or real gas eects) arise, inuencing
the molecular and atomic structure of the air.
Essentially these eects are, [1, 2]:
vibrational excitation of the molecules,

dissociation of oxygen (O2 O + O),
dissociation of nitrogen (N2 N + N ),
chemical reactions (e.g. N O N + O),
ionization of atoms.
These eects change the pressure (except for the rst item) and the shear
stress elds and in particular the values at the vehicles surface. Normally the
pressure eld (pressure drag) is only slightly inuenced, whereas the shear
stress eld (viscous drag) can change considerably due to the change of the
viscosity with temperature. For example the skin friction at a hot surface
generates a lower viscous drag than the skin friction at a cold surface, [3].
Therefore we have besides the uid mechanical inuences also thermodynamic inuences on the aerodynamic coecients. That is the reason why
one should rather use the term aerothermodynamic coecients for this kind
of data. But unfortunately in the literature no dierentiation is made between
these notations. Therefore we also keep the term aerodynamic coecients
for data bases covering the hypersonic ight regime.
2.2
Steady or Unsteady Aerothermodynamics?
The ight of a Re-entry Vehicle (RV) is an unsteady ight throughout. A

CAV nominally may y in a steady mode, but actually it ies more or less
in an unsteady mode. For an introduction in ight trajectories of RVs and
CAVs, see, e.g., [1, 4].
The mechanical loads summated over the vehicle surface show up as the
aerodynamic properties of the vehicle: lift, drag, pitching moment etc., called
in their totality the aerodynamic data set of the vehicle.
2.3 Aerodynamic Coecients
11
A well established approach of the aeronautical community is also employed in the space community: the aerodynamic data of a vehicle are with
one exception steady motion data. This approach is permitted as long as
the ight of the vehicle can be considered as quasi-steady2. The actual ight
path with steady and/or unsteady ight then is described with the help of
three or six degrees of freedom trajectory determinations, see, e.g., [4], with
appropriate systems and operational and control variables, [1].
A reliable criterium, which denes, when the ight can be considered as
being quasi-steady, is not known. Nevertheless, the experience indicates that
one can assume RV and CAV ight to be quasi-steady. This is the reason why
the aerodynamic data are always obtained in a steady-state mode (steady
motion), experimentally and computationally.
The mentioned exception is an aerodynamic vehicle property which is truly
time-dependent: the dynamic stability, see, e.g., [5]. The dynamic stability
is the damping behavior once a disturbance of the vehicles ow eld has
happened, for instance an angle of attack disturbance. The time dependence
indicates, whether the unsteady in general oscillatory motion due to the
disturbance is damped or not. Although very important, the dynamic stability can be considered as being not a primary aerodynamic data set item.
There are other phenomena which are truly unsteady. One is due to the
thermal inertia of a thermal protection system. The surface temperature distribution will not always adapt the value which belongs to the instant state
of ight. Another example is the processes in propulsion systems. We will not
pursue this topic further.
We close this section with a remark regarding the nomenclature in aerothermodynamics. In the space community the aerodynamic data are at least
sometimes called data of static longitudinal stability. This obviously stems
from the rocket launch technology. During the launch process the rocket ies
longitudinally unstable and must be controlled with appropriate means, either aerodynamical or thruster related.
It appears to be advisable to use for RVs and CAVs the term aerodynamic data set which is used in the aeronautical community instead of data
of static longitudinal stability.
2.3
Aerodynamic Coecients
In general the aerodynamic forces and moments are dened in two coordinate
frames, namely the body-xed (body-axis) system and the air-path (windaxis) system.
The denition of the forces and moments in the body-xed system is (see
Chapter 8):
2
Changes of the free-stream conditions are so slow that the ow eld around the
vehicle is approximately steady. This means that the mechanical and thermal
values along the whole vehicle surface are to a greater or lesser extent instantaneously steady.
12
X
Z
Y
axial force
normal force
side force
l
m
n
rolling moment,
pitching moment,
yawing moment,
and in the air-path system (the moments are dened as before):

L
D
Ya
lift force,
drag force,
side force.
When forces are normalized with the dynamic pressure of the free-stream
2
q = 0.5 v
and a reference area Sref , and the moments in addition
with a reference length bref (often the span width), we get the aerodynamic
coecients:
CX =
Cl =
X
,
q Sref
l
q Sref bref
CZ =
,
Z
,
q Sref
Cm =
CY =
m
,
q Sref c
Y
,
q Sref
Cn =
n
q Sref bref
and
CL =
L
,
q Sref
CD =
D
,
q Sref
CY a =
Ya
.
q Sref
For airplanes, cruise and acceleration vehicles (CAV) and winged re-entry
vehicles (RV-W) usually the air-path coordinate system is used, while the
body-xed system is often applied to capsules, probes, cones and bicones, see
Chapters 4 to 7.
There are a lot of independent variables which inuence the aerodynamic
coecients3 . In the following we specify the most important ones:
M, Re, , ,
, e , a , bf , r , sb , p, q, r,
(list of independent variables)
where
3
We mention here that the ight control of space vehicles is not only done by
aerodynamic control surfaces, but also by rocket based Reaction Control Systems
(RCS), in particular when during the re-entry phase the aerodynamic control
surfaces are not eective. This is the case during the rst part of the re-entry
trajectory, where the density of the atmosphere is low. For the SPACE SHUTTLE
Orbiter the RCS system is active down to an altitude of approximately 30 km
(M 5), [1].
e
bf
sb
ight Mach number

angle of attack
angle of side slip, yaw angle,
elevon deection
body ap deection
speed break deection
Re
Reynolds number,
time derivative of ,
a
r
q, p, r
aileron setting,
rudder deection,
angular velocities,
13
and4
e =
1 R
( + eL )
2 e
elevon deection ,
a =
1 R
( eL )
2 e
aileron setting ,
eL
left wing ap deection, positive downward ,
eR
right wing ap deection, positive downward .
Of course, not all of the independent variables are appropriate or important

for the various space vehicles. For example, CAVs do not have body aps
or RV-NWs have no aerodynamic controls and in the case that the RV-NW
vehicles are axisymmetric no lateral forces and moments are acting.
Experience has shown that the aerodynamic coecients, representing the
longitudinal motion CX , CZ , Cm (or CL , CD , Cm ), depend for the static stability mainly on the variables M, , e , bf , sb and for the dynamic stability
on ,
q, whereas the lateral coecients CY , Cl , Cn (or CY a , Cl , Cn ) are up to
the static variables , a , r and to the dynamic variables p, r.
The establishment of the aerodynamic data base, mainly driven by wind
tunnel tests and numerical simulations, occurs with xed settings of the aerodynamic control surfaces and at a constant ight Mach number, while changing either the angle of attack (with constant ) or the angle of side slip
(with constant ). This yields a complex dependency of the aerodynamic
coecients on all those independent variables, which cannot be described
analytically. This means that the aerodynamic coecients at a particular
operating point during the ight along a prescribed trajectory have to be determined by a multi-dimensional interpolation inside the aerodynamic data
base, which in general is a highly sophisticated and expensive task.
In order to have a working basis for the determination of the aerodynamic
coecients, to be used in ight mechanical computations, an aerodynamic
model has to be generated. With the experience made during the development
of civil and military aircraft as well as space ight vehicles, two assumptions
can be formulated. Firstly, that the aerodynamic impacts based on the longitudinally acting independent variables are decoupled from those acting in
the lateral direction. This is obviously valid for small angles of attack and
4
R denotes right hand, L left hand side.
14
side slip. Secondly, that the aerodynamic impacts can be piecewise linearly
approximated.
In that sense the following aerodynamic derivatives are built:
a) longitudinal stability
CX
,
M
CZ
,
M
CL
,
M
CD
,
M
Cm
,
M
CX
,
Re
CZ
,
Re
CL
,
Re
CD
,
Re
Cm
,
Re
CX
,
CZ
,
CL
,
CD
,
Cm
,
CX
,
e
CZ
,
e
CL
,
e
CD
,
e
Cm
,
e
CX
,
bf
CZ
,
bf
CL
,
bf
CD
,
bf
Cm
,
bf
CX
,
sb
CZ
,
sb
CL
,
sb
CD
,
sb
Cm
,
sb
CX
,

CZ
,

CL
,

CD
,

Cm
,

CX
,
q
CZ
,
q
CL
,
q
CD
,
q
Cm
,
q
b) lateral stability
CY
,
CY a
,
Cl
,
Cn
,
CY
,
a
CY a
,
a
Cl
,
a
Cn
,
a
CY
,
r
CY a
,
r
Cl
,
r
Cn
,
r
CY
,
p
CY a
,
p
Cl
,
p
Cn
,
p
CY
,
r
CY a
,
r
Cl
,
r
Cn
,
r
15
where the variables ,

p. q, r are made dimensionless with c being the mean
= c/v ,
chord5 and v the free-stream velocity, and we then have
p = p c/v , q = q c/v , r = r c/v .
The following derivatives are known as, [5, 6]:
yaw stiness
yaw control
roll stiness
roll control
damping in roll
damping in yaw
cross derivative
cross derivative
damping in pitch
damping in pitch
yaw-lateral force
roll-lateral force
Cn
Cnr
Cl
Cla
Clp
Cnr
Cnp
Clr
Cmq
Cm
CY r
CY p
weathercock stability, directional stability

dihedral eect
yawing moment due to roll

rolling moment due to yaw
due to angle of attack change
As already mentioned the establishment of the aerodynamic model depends on the aerospace vehicle considered, the measured and numerically
simulated aerodynamic data and the experience of the design engineers, who
decide and estimate which aerodynamic characteristics are important and
which ones are negligible.
A possible aerodynamic model could be built as follows. First, the dependence of the aerodynamic coecients on the main parameters M , Re and
is determined. Then all the other inuences are added by an incremental consideration. Therefore one obtains in general for the kth -aerodynamic
coecient:
Ck = Ck0 (M, Re, ) + Ck (M, Re, , ) + Cke (M, , e ) +
+Ckbf (M, , bf ) + +Cksb (M, , sb ) + Cka (M, , a ) +

+Ckr (M, , r ) + +Ck (M, Re, , )
+ Ckq (M, Re, , q) +
+Ckp (M, Re, , p) + Ckr (M, Re, , r) ,
where the term Ck0 (M, Re, ) denotes the aerodynamic coecient, when all
the control surfaces are in neutral position and the angle of yaw is = 0 .
Of course for individual coecients some of the increments can be neglected as the two examples, namely the lift coecient CL and the rolling
moment coecient Cl show.
5
The mean chord is dened by c = S/b, with S the planform area and b the span
of the wing.
16
CL = CL0 (M, Re, ) + CL (M, Re, , ) + CLe (M, , e ) +
+ CLq (M, Re, , q) ,

+CLbf (M, , bf ) + +CL (M, Re, , )
and
Cl = Cl (M, Re, , ) + Cla (M, , a ) + Clr (M, , r ) +
+CLp (M, Re, , p) + CLr (M, Re, , r) .
The increments are determined by:
Ck (M, Re, , ) = Ck (M, Re, , ) Ck (M, Re, ) ,
where denotes any variable specied in the list presented above.
When the aerodynamic design engineers decide, after inspection of the
aerodynamic data, that the inuence of the independent variables are small
and that their behavior in general is linear, an aerodynamic model in the
type of a Taylor series can be generated. Therefore we get, for example, for
the lift coecient6

CL
CL
CL
CL
() +
() +
CL = CL0 (M ) +
(e ) +
(bf ) +
e
bf
CL
CL
CL
(sb ) +
( ) +
(q ) ,
sb

q
where the term in brackets is mostly negligible, and for the rolling moment
coecient
Cl =
2.4
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
(a ) +
(r ) +
(p ) + (r ) .
() +
a
r
p
r
Examples of Aerodynamic Models
2.4.1
The SAENGER Vehicle (CAV)
In Section 7.2 we deal with the aerodynamics of the SAENGER vehicle, the
reference concept of a German technology program. In the following we describe the aerodynamic model for this airbreathing vehicle, which is reported
in [7]. The sketch in Fig. 2.1. shows the notations used in the model.
CL (M, , e ) = CL (M, ) + CL (M, , e ) + CL,book (M, ) ,
6
The Reynolds number dependency is omitted in this example.
2.4 Examples of Aerodynamic Models
17
CD (M, , e , H) = CD0,pressure (M, ) + CD0,f riction (M, H)

+CD,induced (M, ) + CD (M, , e )
+CD,book (M, ) + CD,f riction,book (M, H) ,
Cm (M, , e ) = Cm (M, ) + Cm (M, , e ) + Cm,book (M, ) ,
CY (M, , r ) =
CY
CY
(M ) +
(M ) r ,
Cl (M, , , r , a ) =
Cn (M, , , r ) =
Cl
Cl
Cl
(M, ) +
(M ) r +
(M ) a ,
r
a
Cn
Cn
(M, ) +
(M ) r .
The variable H denotes the ight altitude. For longitudinal coecients the
increment method is used, whereas for the lateral coecients the derivative
method is applied indicating the expectation of a linear behavior. The terms
with the subscript book contain primarily the inuence of the propulsion
system including the inlet and the expansion nozzle7 .
Fig. 2.1. SAENGER top view: notations of the aerodynamic control deections
For the book keeping of the aerodynamic and propulsion forces see, e.g., [1].
18
2.4.2
The X-38 Vehicle (RV-W)
The X-38 spacecraft, a European-US project (Section 6.6), was designed as

a crew rescue vehicle (CRV) for the evacuation of the crew members of the
International Space Station ISS. This was for the case that they become injured or fall ill, and further in the case of an ISS disaster. Many European
institutions (aerospace companies, research institutes and universities) were
involved in establishing the aerodynamic data base (ADB). The responsibility
for this ADB was with the French company DASSAULT AVIATION. Therefore this company, with the support of some NASA engineers, had generated
the aerodynamic model, which we describe below, [8].
CL = CL0 (M ) +
CL
CL
CL
() +
(e ) +
(sb ) ,
e
sb
0
CD = CD
(M ) +
CD
CD
CD
() +
(e ) +
(sb ) ,
e
sb
0
Cm = Cm
(M ) +
Cm
Cm
CD
Cm
() +
(e ) +
(sb ) +
q ,
e
sb
q
CY =
Cl =
CY
CY
CY
CY
() +
(a ) +
(r ) +
(sb ) ,
a
r
sb
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
() +
(a ) +
(r ) +
(sb )+
a
r
sb
Cl
Cl
(p ) + (r ) ,
p
r
Cn =
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
(a ) +
(r ) +
(sb )+
() +
a
r
sb
Cn
Cn
(p ) +
(r ) .
p
r
As one can see, the model above is based on the derivative method indicating the assumption that the aerodynamic coecients have primarily a
linear dependency on the related independent variables.
Note that the elevon and aileron deections are based on the split body
ap and that the speed brake deection is due to the appropriate rudder
setting as is shown in Fig. 2.2.
2.4 Examples of Aerodynamic Models
19
Fig. 2.2. X-38 vehicle: notations used in the aerodynamic model
2.4.3
The PRORA Vehicle (RV-W)
The aerodynamics of the demonstrator vehicle PRORA, an Italian project,

are discussed in Section 6.10. PRORA is primarily a re-entry vehicle, however
with a certain ascent capability. The aerodynamic model presented below is
a combination of the increment method and the derivative method, whereby
the derivative terms are only used for the time dependent variables ,
p, q, r,
indicating the assumption that their inuence on the aerodynamic coecients
is linear, [9].
CL = CLBL (M, Re, ) + CL (M, Re, , ) + CLe (M, , e ) +
CLr (M, , r ) +
CL
CL
(M, Re, ) +
(M, Re, , cog) q ,

q
e
BL
CD = CD
(M, Re, ) + CD
(M, Re, , ) + CD
(M, , e ) +
r
CD
(M, , r ),
BL
e
(M, Re, ) + Cm
(M, Re, , ) + Cm
(M, , e ) +
Cm = Cm
r
Cm
(M, , r ) + +
Cm
Cm
(M, Re, ) +
(M, Re, , cog) q ,
20
CY = CY (M, Re, , ) + CYe (M, , e ) + CYr (M, , , r ) +

CY
CY
(M, Re, , cog) p +
(M, Re, , cog) r ,
p
r
Cl = Cl (M, Re, , ) + Cle (M, , e ) + Clr (M, , , r ) +
Cl
Cl
(M, Re, , cog) p + (M, Re, , cog) r ,
p
r
Cn = Cn (M, Re, , ) + Cne (M, , e ) + Cnr (M, , , r ) +
Cn
Cn
(M, Re, , cog) p +
(M, Re, , cog) r .
p
r
Fig. 2.3. PRORA vehicle: notations used in the aerodynamic model
Remarkable in this model are on the one hand the Reynolds number
and the center-of-gravity (cog) dependencies, and on the other hand that
no aileron inuence is explicitly accounted for. Fig. 2.3 shows the notations
used in the model.
References
21
References
3. Hirschel, E.H., Weiland, C.: Design of hypersonic ight vehicles: some lessons
from the past and future challenges. CEAS Space Journal 1(1), 322 (2011)
(2010)
5. Etkin, B.: Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight. John Wiley & Sons, New York
(1972)
6. Brockhaus, R.: Flugregelung. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
7. Kraus, M.: Aerodynamische Datens

atze f
ur die Konguration SANGER
4-92.
Deutsche Aerospace, DASA-LME211-TN-HYPAC-290 (1992)
8. Preaud, J.-P.: Dassault preliminary ADB in Gemass Format, Formulation and
Description. Industrial Communication (1998)
9. Rufolo, G.C., Roncioni, P., Marini, M., Votta, R., Palazzo, S.: Experimental
and Numerical Aerodynamic Data Integration and Aerodatabase Development
for the PRORA-USV-FTB-1 Reusable Vehicle. AIAA-Paper 2006-8031 (2006)
Classication and Project Data of Space

Vehicles
The development of space vehicles is an evolutionary process, like so many

other objects and instruments humans have evolved. The rst space vehicles, the capsules and probes (RV-NW), had very simple shapes. These were
followed by the more complex shapes of the winged re-entry vehicles (RVW) SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter and BURAN Orbiter. The next step, which
was mainly conceived in order to overcome the pure rocket based propulsion
system, was to transport space vehicles, at least partly, with the support
of airbreathing propulsion systems into space. Unfortunately the consideration of some of these systems, -Single-Stage-To-Orbit, Two-Stage-To-Orbit
(CAV)-, up to now has only the status of technology and system study work.
3.1
Overview
In this book we present the aerodynamic coecients of a large number of

space vehicles. This comprises vehicles with such a level of maturity that
they became operational, like APOLLO, SOYUZ, SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, etc., industrial projects, which were cancelled, but had already established a high degree of aerodynamic data, like HERMES, X34, etc., demonstrator projects, like PHOENIX, PRORA, OREX, etc., as well as paperwork
projects, like SAENGER, ELAC, CARINA, etc., all performed by workshares of industrial companies, research institutes and universities. Further,
space vehicles executing extra terrestrial missions, like VIKING, HUYGENS,
etc., are also considered.
We arrange these vehicles in the following three classes, which were already
dened in [1, 2]:
Non-winged vehicles (RV-NW) with the subclasses capsules and probes as
well as cones and bicones,
Winged re-entry vehicles (RV-W),
Cruise and acceleration vehicles (CAV).
The transport of payload into space and its return to the Earths surface is
known to require the development and construction of suitable vehicles which
are able to withstand the very severe thermal and mechanical (pressure and
shear stress, [1]) loads encountered during such a mission. In the early days of
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_3,
23
24
3 Classication and Project Data of Space Vehicles
space exploration the designers had the feeling that the vehicle shape should
be as simple and compact as possible. So, capsules and probes as the most
important types of the non-winged re-entry vehicles (RV-NW) were born.
Basic properties and details of the aerothermodynamic design problems of
such vehicles are treated in [1].
In general the class of RV-NWs comprises ballistic entry probes (also for
entry into extra terrestrial atmospheres), traditional capsules and blunted
cones and bicones. Whereas, normally, the capsules and probes do not have
aerodynamic control surfaces, the cones and bicones may have some, in particular body aps for longitudinal trim. To this may come split body aps,
inclined to the lateral axis for roll control and lateral stability1 . The aerodynamics of capsules and probes are treated in Chapter 4 and of cones and
bicones in Chapter 5.
A positive aerodynamic performance of the lift-to-drag ratio L/D for capsules and probes can be achieved only with negative angle of attack. The
reason for that is described in detail in [1]. In contrast to this cones and
bicones behave, regarding the aerodynamic performance, like conventional
airplanes or winged space planes, namely that L/D is positive for positive
angles of attack.
A winged re-entry vehicle is heavier and more complex than a non-winged
vehicle (capsule), but in principle is a re-usable vehicle. Its relatively high liftto-drag ratio L/D leads to in a large cross-range capability. The aerodynamic
design of RV-Ws is driven by the wide Mach number and altitude range of
these vehicles, the structural design is driven by the large thermal loads2 ,
which are present on the atmospheric high speed segment of the re-entry
trajectory.
Winged re-entry vehicles basically y a braking mission during return from
orbit or sub-orbit to the surface of Earth. They are, therefore, on purpose
blunt and compact vehicles. They y on the largest part of their trajectory
at high angle of attack, which is in contrast to airbreathing CAVs.
The high angle of attack of the vehicle with a more or less at windward
side increases the eective bluntness, and thus increases further the (wave)
drag of the vehicle. On the other hand, the large bluntness permits a very
eective surface radiation cooling, [2].
The small aspect ratios of RV-Ws, as for all hypersonic ight vehicles,
causes diculties in low speed control, such as during approach and landing.
In Chapter 6 the aerodynamic coecients of RV-W vehicles are presented for
the whole trajectory including the low speed segment.
To date, there does not exist a fully reusable space transportation system with the capability of taking o horizontally or vertically and landing
horizontally. As we have mentioned before, the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter
is launched vertically like a rocket with the support of solid rocket boosters
1
2
Of course, the guidance and ight control of RV-NWs is also conducted in a

wide eld by Reaction Control Systems (RCS).
Usually cold primary structures and thermal protection systems (TPS).
3.2 Re-entry Vehicles - Non-winged (RV-NW): Space Probes and Capsules
25
attached to the expendable tank. The re-entry process into the Earths atmosphere consists of a gliding unpowered ight and a horizontal landing on
a conventional runway.
All of the capsules, which have transported and still transport men to and
from space, were and are single-use vehicles, launched vertically on top of
rockets. The landing, either at sea or on ground, is usually performed with
the aid of a parachute system.
Although the above-mentioned systems represent reliable means of space
transportation, the cost of delivering payloads into space remains much too
high and a launch on demand is not possible. Consequently, at the end of
the 1980s and during the 1990s, numerous activities all over the world aimed
for the developments of fully reusable space transportation systems. These
were to have the capability of launch on demand and preferable the ability
to take-o and land horizontally.
Conceptual design studies covered Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) and
Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) systems. An overview about these studies can
be found in [3].
The class of cruise and acceleration vehicles (CAVs) consists essentially of
hypersonic spacecrafts which y with small angles of attack and minimized
drag. Parts of the ascent and descent trajectories which are to be own by
SSTO concept vehicles are in accordance with the denition of CAVs. Other
parts of those trajectories are more RV-W like. The lower part of a TSTO
system is a pure hypersonic spacecraft and thus a CAV. Candidates of that
are, for example, the German SAENGER system and the French STAR-H
system. For both systems only preliminary design and technology work was
performed before the projects were cancelled during the mid of the 1990s.
The aerodynamic data bases of two of such systems are partly available
and can be found in Chapter 7.
Below we have listed in four sections in a comparative manner the vehicles considered in this book. Summarized in short are the most relevant
development items and mission features, as well as the vehicle shapes.
3.2
Re-entry Vehicles - Non-winged (RV-NW): Space

Probes and Capsules
Capsules and probes typically have a lift-to-drag ratio of 0.3 L/D 0.4, [1].
Ascent:
Capsules and probes are launched generally on top of rockets which accelerate them to the speeds necessary for stays in the various Earth orbits or
in the case of extra-terrestrial mission the speed to leave the Earths gravity
eld. For more information concerning the velocity laws of ight in space, see
[4].
26
Descent and landing:

After ying along a ballistic or low L/D entry trajectory the nal deceleration takes place by parachute systems either in water or on ground.
APOLLO capsule: Section 4.2.
United States ight project,
several vehicles were developed and manufactured,
lunar missions, APOLLO project,
own during 1966 - 1973,
aerodynamic data of steady longitudinal motion available,
axisymmetric shape,
dynamic stability data available.
Fig. 3.1. Non-winged
re-entry vehicle
Details of aerodynamics: page 43 .
SOYUZ capsule: Section 4.3.

Soviet Union space project,
several vehicles were developed and manufactured,
low Earth orbit missions,
own during 1965 - until now,
axisymmetric shape,
re-entry vehicle
27
ARD capsule: Section 4.4.
European demonstrator project,

one vehicle was developed and manufactured,
sub-orbital ight,
project duration: 1993 - 1998, one ight in 1998,
ight data of steady longitudinal motion available,
axisymmetric shape,
re-entry vehicle
HUYGENS probe: Section 4.5.

European space ight project for Saturn moon
Titan,
passenger space ight to Titan,
launch on Oct. 1997, arrived at Saturn on July
2004 and land on Titan on Jan. 2005,
no access to aerodynamic data of steady longitudinal motion,
axisymmetric shape,
no access to dynamic stability data.
Fig. 3.4. Space probe
BEAGLE2 probe: Section 4.6.
Great Britain project,

passenger space ight to Mars,
launch on June 2003, landing on Martian surface Dec. 2003, landing failed,
rough aerodynamic data of steady longitudinal
motion available,
axisymmetric shape,
dynamic stability data not available.
28
OREX demonstrator: Section 4.7.
Japans Hope-X project,

ight in low Earth orbit (LEO),
launch in 1994, one complete orbital cycle performed,
ballistic re-entry ight, drag coecients available,
axisymmetric shape,
Fig. 3.6. Technology
demonstrator
VIKING-type : Section 4.8.

European design study in the Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV) project,
extensive theoretical and experimental data
available,
low Earth orbit mission,
not own,
axisymmetric shape,
Fig. 3.7. Congurational Details of aerodynamics: page 80 .

study
CARINA probe: Section 4.9.
Italian project,
some theoretical and experimental data available,
low Earth orbit mission,
not own,
rough aerodynamic data of steady longitudinal
motion available,
axisymmetric shape,
Fig. 3.8. Capsule system
study
29
AFE probe: Section 4.10.

Joint U.S. (AOTV) - Europe (MSRO) project,
detailed theoretical and experimental data
available,
orbital transfer mission,
not own,
aerodynamic data of steady lateral motion
available,
Fig. 3.9. Capsule system

study
VIKING : Section 4.11.
U.S. Mars exploration project,

two vehicles were developed and built,
VIKING1 and VIKING2,
passenger ight to Mars,
launch of VIKING1 on Aug. 1975, arrived at
Mars on June 1976, launch of VIKING2 on
Sept. 1975, arrived at Mars on Aug. 1976,
axisymmetric shape,
Remark: The denotations of the abbreviations used in the description

of the AFE probe are
AOTV = Aero-assisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle,
MSRO = Mars Sample Return Orbiter.
30
3.3
Re-entry Vehicles - Non-Winged (RV-NW): Cones

and Bicones
Cones and bicones have typically a lift-to-drag ratio of 0.6 L/D 1.2.
Actually there is and was no space ight project, which has used cones or
bicones despite their apparent advantages, see, e.g., [1].
Ascent:
Cones and bicones would be probably launched on top of rockets which
then accelerate them up to the speeds corresponding to their missions. For
more information concerning the velocity laws of ights in space, see, e.g., [4].
The re-entry process of cones and bicones would be very similar to the one
of capsules and probes, except that their cross-range capability is somewhat
higher, which enables them to y more precisely to the landing area.
The nal deceleration could take place by parachute or paraglider systems
again either in water or on ground.
BLUFF-BICONE : Section 5.2.

German design study in the frame of the European Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV) project,
available,
not own,
axisymmetric shape,
Fig. 3.11. Congurational
study
3.3 Re-entry Vehicles - Non-Winged (RV-NW): Cones and Bicones
31
SLENDER-BICONE : Section 5.3.

Russian design study,
available,
not own,
axisymmetric shape,
Fig. 3.12. Congurational dynamic stability data not available.
study
BENT-BICONE : Section 5.4.

U.S. design study,
some theoretical and experimental data are
available,
not own,
no aerodynamic data of steady lateral motion
available,
study
COLIBRI: Section 5.5.

study
German design study,

theoretical and experimental data are available,
not own,
aerodynamic data of steady lateral motion
available,
32
IRDT: Section 5.6.
Russia - Germany space ight project,

sub-orbital ight,
qualication ight in Feb. 2000,
axisymmetric body,
some dynamic stability data available.
Fig. 3.15. Flight
demonstrator
EXPERT: Section 5.7.

demonstrator
European ying test bed project,

sub-orbital ight,
three ballistic re-entry ights are planned,
aerodynamic data of steady lateral motion not
available,
3.4 Re-entry Vehicles -Winged (RV-W)
3.4
33
Re-entry Vehicles -Winged (RV-W)
RV-W have typically an untrimmed lift-to-drag ratio of L/D 2.0 in the

high Mach number regime. For the approach and landing process the magnitude of the aerodynamic performance L/D must be at least 4.5 in the low
subsonic regime.
Ascent:
Winged re-entry vehicles (RV-W) are either launched vertically with the
help of rockets, or - in the case of Two-Stage-To-Orbit systems (TSTO) - horizontally from a carrier vehicle, the lower stage of the system. Other launch
modes have been considered, viz. the horizontal launch from a sled, [1, 2].
The return to the Earth surface in any case is made with an unpowered
gliding ight, followed by the horizontal landing on a runway.
SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter: Section 6.2.
Fig. 3.17. Space and

re-entry vehicle
United States space ight project,

detailed aerodynamic data base available,
ights in low Earth orbit,
135 ights between 1981 and 2011,
aerodynamic data of steady motion (longitudinal and lateral) available,
34
X-33 space vehicle: Section 6.3.

United States technology and ight demonstrator project,
experimental and numerical data for hypersonic ight available,
sub-orbital ight,
project: begin in 1996 cancelled in 2001,
aerodynamic data of steady motion (longitudiFig. 3.18. Demonstrator
nal and lateral) available,
vehicle

experimental and numerical data available,
ight with M = 8 up to an altitude of 76 km,
project: begin in 1996, cancelled in 2001,
Fig. 3.19. Demonstrator

vehicle

no access to aerodynamic data,
project: begin in 1999,
rst ight took place in 2010 and two further
ones in 2011 and 2012,
aerodynamic data of steady motion (longitudinal and lateral) not available,
Fig. 3.20. Demonstrator

vehicle
3.4 Re-entry Vehicles -Winged (RV-W)
35
X-38 re-entry vehicle: Section 6.6.

Europe - U.S. crew rescue vehicle project,
experimental and numerical data for the whole
Mach number range available,
two ights for parafoil landing demonstration,
project: begin in 1996, cancelled in June 2002,
Fig. 3.21. Re-entry
some dynamic stability data available.

vehicle on lifting body basis
PHOENIX re-entry demonstrator:

Section 6.7.
Fig. 3.22. Space ight

demonstrator
Germanys space ight demonstrator project,

detailed experimental and numerical data for
the whole Mach number range available,
some ights demonstrating automatic landing
capability,
project: begin in 2000, terminated in 2004,
HOPE-X re-entry vehicle: Section 6.8.
Fig. 3.23. Space and

re-entry vehicle
Japans space ight project,

some experimental and numerical data of the
aerodynamic data base available,
not own,
project: begin 1980s, cancelled in 2003,
36
Facetted DS6 configuration: Section 6.9.

demonstrator vehicle
Germanys congurational study,

some experimental and numerical data available,
demonstration ights: SHEFEX I in 2005 and
SHEFEX II, in 2012, no ight of DS6,
project: begin in the 1990s,
some aerodynamic data of steady motion (longitudinal) available,
PRORO-USV demonstrator vehicle:

Section 6.10.

demonstrator vehicle
Italys ight demonstrator program,

experimental and numerical data for transonic
ight available,
one transonic demonstrator ight in Feb. 2007,
project: begin in 2000,
HERMES re-entry vehicle: Section 6.11.
Fig. 3.26. Re-entry

vehicle
Re-entry vehicle as part of Europes access to

space program,
detailed experimental and numerical data for
for the whole Mach number range,
no demonstration ight,
project: begin in 1984, cancelled 1993,
3.5 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicles (CAV)
3.5
37
Cruise and Acceleration Vehicles (CAV)
CAVs possess as aircraft-like vehicles a high lift-to-drag ratio L/D. For example, the lower stage of the TSTO system SAENGER possesses for hypersonic Mach numbers a L/D 4.5 to 5.0, and in the low subsonic regime a
L/D 11.
Ascent:
Most complex are the SSTO vehicles3 . Their propulsion systems could be
described as follows:
1. only conventual rocket motors = HOPPER,
2. only linear aerospike rocket motor = X-33,
3. turbojet for aeroassisted ight4 in the rst part of the trajectory (up to
altitudes of 15-18 km) and rocket motors for ight in the second part of
the trajectory = HOTOL5 concept I,
4. combination of turbojet-ramjet/scramjet propulsion in the rst part of
the trajectory (up to altitudes of 42-46 km) and rocket motors for ight
in the second part of the trajectory = HOTOL concept II, [3].
For the SSTO concept cases 3) and 4) the ight during the rst part of
the ascent trajectory was to be aeroassisted, where the vehicle behaves like
a CAV6 .
TSTO systems have a clear distinction between the tasks of the upper
stage and the lower stage. The lower stage is a CAV with an airbreathing
propulsion system, which transports the upper stage to the altitude, where
the stage separation takes place. The upper stage is rocket propelled and
behaves like a RV-W.
SSTOs execute the descent like a RV-W, which means unpowered in a
straight deceleration mode, gliding to the runway. The descent of TSTOs is
split. The lower stage operates like a powered hypersonic spacecraft (CAV)
3
4
5
6
ESA initiated the program Future European Space Transportation Investigation

Program (FESTIP), (1994-1998). In this program a large variety of dierent
SSTO and TSTO concepts were investigated and their potentials were worked
out, [3, 5].
Aeroassisted ight means ight with an airbreathing propulsion system and lift
generated by aerodynamic surfaces like wings, winglets and parts of fuselages.
The Horizontal Take-O and Landing concept HOTOL was a British project,
which was considered during the years 1982-1991, [3].
There were other CAV-type concept studies, for example the U.S. NASP National
Aerospace Plane concept, the French concepts STAR-H and PREPHA as well as
the Russian concept MIGAKS. All these studies were cancelled. The author had
no access to any aerodynamic data of these vehicles.
38
and ies back to its destination. The upper stage conducts the re-entry and
landing process like a RV-W.
SAENGER TSTO system,

lower stage: Section 7.2.
Fig. 3.27. Hypersonic

vehicle
Germanys Hypersonic Technology Program,

detailed experimental and numerical data of
the lower stage for the whole Mach number
range available,
project: begin in 1986, cancelled 1993,
ELAC technology demonstrator,

lower stage: Section 7.3.
TSTO design study of three German DFG Centers of Excellence,
experimental and numerical data for the whole
Mach number range,
project: begin in 1989, nished 2003,
Fig. 3.28. Hypersonic
vehicle
References
39
References
3. Kuczera, H., Sacher, P.: Reusable Space Transportation Systems. Springer,
Heidelberg (2011)
(2010)
5. FESTIP System Concept Team. Concept Selection Workshop. Conclusions and
recommendations handout distributed to all participants, Lenggries, Germany,
September 15-16 (1998)
Aerodynamic Data of Non-Winged Re-entry

Vehicles (RV-NW)
- Capsules and Probes -
The Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States of America were the
rst, who had developed capsules and probes and had brought them into
space. Later other countries or union of countries (Germany, Japan, Great
Britain, France, Italy, Europe, etc.) developed and sometimes launched similar vehicles as demonstrators, often in order to improve their competence in
space transportation technology.
The shapes were very simple, axisymmetric congurations, which were
equipped for the re-entry process with a heat shield consisting of ablative
materials. Ballistic or low lift ight trajectories were devised for the re-entry
process. The ight control of such vehicles was exclusively conducted by Reaction Control Systems (RCS).
4.1
Introduction
In order to understand some of the aerodynamic properties of capsules and

probes we describe in the following some eects which are inherent in this
kind of vehicles.
Angle of attack:
Blunt congurations like capsules and probes have a positive lift only for
negative angles of attack. The reason for that is, that blu bodies have a
large axial force coecient CX and a small normal force coecient CZ .
Hence the lift coecient, eq. (8.7), changes sign when CX sin becomes
larger than CZ cos . For an explanation in more detail see [1]. Therefore
all aerodynamic coecients in this chapter are plotted versus negative angles of attack.
Flow eld past axisymmetric bodies:
For a ow eld around an axisymmetric body there can always be found
a plane of symmetry whatever the values of the angles of attack and
angle of side slip are. This means that the aerodynamic data sets of such

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_4,
41
42
4 Aerodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Capsules and Probes -
vehicles consists only of the longitudinal coecients. Lateral coecients

are unessential.
Banking:
Banking a vehicle around an angle means to roll the vehicle around
the free-stream velocity vector. The result is that the ow is not changed,
but the lift acts now in the lift-drag plane, which is turned by the angle .
For more information see Chapter 6 in [2].
Trim line:
With the general formulations of forces, moments, center-of-pressure and
trim conditions, as they are derived for example in Chapter 7 of [1], we
nd the relations
Cmj = Cmref CZ (xref xj ) + CX (zref zj ),
xcp =
Cmj
CZ
with
zcog zcp =
(xref = zref = zcp = 0),

CZ
(xcog xcp ),
CX
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
where the subscripts cp and cog mean center-of-pressure and center-ofgravity.

With eq. (4.1) the pitching moment coecient is transformed from the
nominal reference point to the reference point positioned in the tip of
the vehicle. With eq. (4.2) the center-of-pressure position along the xcoordinate (zcp = 0) is calculated. Then with eq. (4.3) the line of the centerof-gravity positions can be determined, where the vehicle ies trimmed.
Trim lines can be found in Figs. 4.20, 4.60, 4.61, 5.21.
The role of the z-oset value for trimmed ight of axisymmetric shapes:
A z-oset of the center-of-gravity (zcog ) is very important for the trim
condition of axisymmetric shapes. Since the axial force coecient CX is
much higher than the normal force coecient CZ , the trim angle trim can
be considerably inuenced by a small change of the z-oset value, which
is in contrast to the inuences of changes of the xcog values. For more
information see Chapter 5 in [1].
4.2 APOLLO (USA)
4.2
43
APOLLO (USA)
The APOLLO program was launched with the goal to bring American astronauts to the Moon at the latest by the end of the 1960s. It was part of
NASAs continuing program of space exploration following the MERCURY
and GEMINI projects. The rst successful manned ight (in the frame of the
APOLLO program) into space took place in October 1968 with the APOLLO
7 capsule. The mission was to operate inside a low Earth orbit and to test the
re-entry process. Ten month later, in July 1969, the rst ight to the Moon,
performed with APOLLO 11, had happened, which was a striking success.
After the rst triumphant Moon landing further lunar missions (APOLLO
12,14,15,16,17) were conducted. The lunar program was ended with the successful ight of APOLLO 17 in December 1972.
There is no doubt that the aerodynamics of the APOLLO capsule are
one of the best known. Due to the large number of ights in the 1960s and
1970s either in low Earth orbit or to the Moon, the free ight data base is
remarkable. During the design of APOLLO, most of the aerodynamic data
was obtained from wind tunnel tests, [3] - [7].
Due to the trim behavior of the APOLLO capsule its nominal angle of
attack regime is placed between 30 < < 0 . In this regime the aft part
of the capsule conguration lies in the hypersonic shadow of the ow. The
term hypersonic shadow is used in analogy to Newtons method for hypersonic ows. There, every surface element, which does not see the free-stream
velocity vector has a zero pressure coecient cp and does not contribute to
the aerodynamic forces, see, e.g., [8]. Of course, this is not completely true
for realistic ows, but the experience says that in hypersonic ow the contributions of such surface elements are indeed rather low.
That is the reason why the aerodynamic forces and moments of the capsule
are mainly governed by the front part (heatshield) of the conguration. Of
course, it could happen, due to uncertainties during the re-entry process,
that the capsule enters the atmosphere with other than the nominal angle
of attack values. Therefore it is necessary to investigate whether there exist
trim points in other angle of attack regimes. Indeed capsules possess often so
called parasite trim points, which are usually also Mach number dependent
like the nominal ones. For the APOLLO capsule we present an example of
this behavior in Sub-Section 4.2.4 (peculiarities).
4.2.1
Configurational Aspects
In Fig. 4.1 typical events and images of the APOLLO program are given.
In Fig. 4.2 three-dimensional versions of the APOLLO shape are presented
whereas in Fig. 4.3 the geometrical relations are drawn, [3, 4]. The heatshield
or front part of the conguration consists of a sphere shell, whereas the aft
part of the shape is built by a right circular cone, which is blunted at its apex
by a sphere with a small radius.
44
Fig. 4.1. APOLLO mock-up (left); APOLLO 13 during sea recovery (middle);
APOLLO 11 after the lunar mission (right). Pictures from NASA gallery.
Fig. 4.2. 3D shape presentation of the APOLLO capsule
4.2.2
Aerodynamic Data of Steady Motion
In general the aerodynamic performance data, reported here, was found by

wind tunnel tests. During the 1960s the numerical methods for integration
of the governing equations were not in a state for generating reliable results
of three-dimensional inviscid or viscous ow elds past realistic congurations. This situation has changed during the 1980s with the advent of robust
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes, whereby the quality of the
results was growing every year. At that time these codes could be successfully applied for reliable inviscid and viscous ow elds computations around
simple 3-D shapes like capsules and probes. Of course, in parallel progress was
4.2 APOLLO (USA)
45
Fig. 4.3. Shape denition of the APOLLO capsule, [3, 4]
1.5
axial force coefficient Cx
1.4
M=0.5
M=0.8
M=0.95
M=1.35
M=2.12
M=5.00
M=10.00
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.4. Axial force coecient Cx as function of the angle of attack , [4, 7]
46
necessary also for grid generation strategies and computer capability, what
indeed happened. An example of 3-D ow eld computations around the
APOLLO capsule is given in [9].
Longitudinal Motion
For the axial force Cx and the pitching moment Cm (Figs. 4.4 and 4.7)
we have values for the Mach numbers M = 0.5, 0.8, 0.95, 1.35, 2.12, 5, 10,
whereas for the normal force Cz , and therefore for the aerodynamic performance L/D (Figs. 4.5 and 4.6), for M = 0.95 no values are available.
Generally we discern that for the prescribed moment reference point static
stability is given throughout the whole Mach number regime. The trim angle
of attack in the hypersonic ow regime is approximately trim 23, which
increases in the vicinity of the Mach number M = 2 to trim 27, (Fig.
4.8 (above)). The corresponding aerodynamic performance quantities range
between 0.275 L/Dtrim 0.325, (Figs. 4.8 (below)).
0.1
normal force coefficient C
M=0.5
M=0.8
M=1.35
M=2.12
M=5.00
M=10.00
0.1
0.2
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.5. Normal force coecient Cz as function of the angle of attack , [4, 7]
4.2 APOLLO (USA)
M=0.5
M=0.8
M=1.35
M=2.12
M=5.00
M=10.00
0.5
lift to drag ratio L/D
47
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.6. Aerodynamic performance L/D as function of the angle of attack ,

[4, 7]
0.04
M=0.5
M=0.8
M=0.95
M=1.35
M=2.12
M=5.00
M=10.00
pitch moment coefficient Cm
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.7. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack .

Moment reference point: xref = 0.265 D1 , zref = 0.035 D1 , [4, 7].
trim angle of attack
trim
48
15
20
25
30
0
4
6
Mach number
10
4
6
Mach number
10
lift to drag L/D
0.35
0.3
0.25
0
Fig. 4.8. Trim angle of attack as function of Mach number (above), taken from
Fig. 4.7. Aerodynamic performance (L/D) at the trim angle of attack as function
of the Mach number (below), taken from Fig. 4.6.
Lateral Motion
The APOLLO capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that
no lateral aerodynamic characteristics exist.
4.2.3
Aerodynamic Data of Unsteady Motion
Pitch Motion
The data in Fig. 4.9 are measured with the free-to-tumble test method, [1],
applied to an APOLLO command module with protuberances as they are the
umbilical fairing, the vent and the surviving antenna. For the Mach number
M = 0.8 dynamic pitch stability is guaranteed in the angle of attack regime
3 30 , whereas the vehicle becomes dynamically unstable in that
regime for M = 0.5.
Others Motions
The APOLLO capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that only
the dynamic derivative of pitch motion is relevant.
4.2 APOLLO (USA)
M=0.5
M=0.8
dynamic pitch derivative C
mq
+C
1.5
49
0.5
0.5
1
180 160 140 120 100
80
60
40
20
angle of attack
Fig. 4.9. Dynamic derivative of pitch motion Cmq + Cm as function of the angle
of attack , [4]
4.2.4
Peculiarities
During the development and testing of the APOLLO capsule, it was observed
that the pitching moment Cm could meet the trim and stability conditions
(Cm = 0, Cm / < 0) also at other points besides the nominal one. These
points are called parasite trim points, [1]. There are at least three reasons
why the vehicle must be prevented from entering into such non-nominal trim
positions:
the re-entry process can only be successfully conducted with the heat shield
pointing forward in order to cope with the mechanical and thermal loads,
the parachute landing system can be deployed only if the apex cover can
be jettisoned properly, which could be a problem in the case, that the apex
is exposed to the high pressure regime. Therefore this requires the heat
shield pointing forward, too,
in the launch abort case the escape procedure requires denitely a capsule
heat shield in pointing-forward attitude.
The best solution of this problem would be given by a change to the vehicle
shape which prevents the existence of parasite trim points. But this seems
to be a demanding design challenge. For the APOLLO capsule this problem
could not be solved satisfactorily, [10].
The APOLLO capsule possesses one parasite trim point over the whole
Mach number range, which is somewhat uctuating in the subsonic-transoniclow supersonic regimes. For higher Mach numbers, this trim point becomes
50
independent of the Mach number, Fig. 4.10. The evaluation was conducted
for the center-of-gravity location xcog /D1 = 0.657 (measured from the apex)
and zcog /D1 = 0.035.
trim angle of atttack trim
20
trim; nominal
trim; parasite
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
10
15
20
Free stream Mach number
Fig. 4.10. Nominal and parasite trim points of the APOLLO capsule as function
of the Mach number. Center-of-gravity: xcog /D1 = 0.657 and zcog /D1 = 0.035.
Data source: [4].
4.3 SOYUZ (Russia)
4.3
51
SOYUZ (Russia)
The SOYUZ spacecraft was developed in the 1960s in the frame of the Soviet
Unions space program. Its mission prole was in the past to carry people to
and from the Soviet space stations SALYUT and MIR. It is still in these days
the crew carrier for the International Space Station ISS. Further, the original
planing had foreseen SOYUZ to be a part of the Soviet Unions Manned
Lunar program, which never came true. The rst successful manned ight
has taken place in Oct. 1968, subsequent to a manned ight in 1967, which
ended with a crash-landing and the death of the cosmonauts. Since then the
SOYUZ capsule has conducted the re-entry missions of persons from low
Earth orbit ights and the ISS very reliably.
The mass of the SOYUZ capsule is approximately 3000 kg. All the launches
of the SOYUZ spacecrafts are carried out with SOYUZ rockets. The transport
capability and launch security of these rockets are continuously advanced
since the 1960s.
4.3.1
Fig. 4.11 shows some images of the SOYUZ capsule as part of the SOYUZ
spacecraft. In Fig. 4.12 three-dimensional versions of the SOYUZ capsule
shape are presented whereas in Fig. 4.13 the geometrical relations are drawn,
[11]. The SOYUZ spacecraft is composed of three parts, the orbital module,
the re-entry module (SOYUZ capsule) and the service module. The shape
of the SOYUZ capsule consists of a front part, which is built as a spherical
segment, and an aft body in the form of a blunted circular cone, Fig. 4.12. The
last part of the descent of the SOYUZ capsule after re-entry in the atmosphere
is performed with the help of a parachute system and the subsequent landing
always takes place in the desert of Kazakhstan. This is in contrast to the
procedure for APOLLO, which was designed for a water landing.
Fig. 4.11. SOYUZ spacecraft with the re-entry module in the middle of the
spacecraft structure (left); SOYUZ spacecraft mock-up (middle); SOYUZ capsule
after landing in the desert of Kazakhstan (right). Pictures from NASA and ESA
galleries.
52
Fig. 4.12. 3D shape presentation of the SOYUZ capsule
Fig. 4.13. Shape denition of the SOYUZ capsule, [11]
4.3 SOYUZ (Russia)
4.3.2
53
Most of the aerodynamic performance data were obtained by experiments in

the wind tunnels of TSNIIMASH and TSAGI. Both institutions are located
near Moscow, Russia. Certainly some data were measured using a free ying
large scale model with a diameter of 1 m.
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic coecients CX , CZ , Cm and L/D are given for the Mach
numbers M = 0.60, 0.95, 1.10, 1.78, 2.52, 5.96, Figs. 4.14 - 4.17. The design
goal was to attain in the hypersonic ight regime for the given trim angle
trim 25 an aerodynamic performance value of L/D = 0.3, which indeed
was met, see Figs. 4.16 and 4.17. The vehicle behaves statically stable in the
whole Mach number range presented here and the angle of attack regime
30 0 . It is conspicuous that the axial force coecient CX has
for all plotted Mach numbers its maximum at = 0 and decreases with
increasing negative angle of attack. This behavior is dierent from that of
APOLLO, where the maximum of the force coecients are Mach number
dependent, with the highest negative value for the lowest Mach number
(M = 0.5 CXmax ( 15 ), see Fig. 4.4). The trim angle of attack
course as function of the Mach number is exhibited in Fig. 4.18 and indicates
the same characteristics as the APOLLO one (see Fig. 4.8), namely to increase
from subsonic Mach numbers to a local maximum at M 1.8 2, followed
by a moderate decrease up to Mach numbers M 4 and a slight growing
when the Mach number approaches the hypersonic regime.
Lateral Motion
The SOYUZ capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that no
lateral aerodynamic characteristics exist.
4.3.3
Pitch Motion
The dynamic derivative of pitch motion1 mz z as function of the angle of
attack ( 180 0 ) is plotted in Fig. 4.19. Generally for 83
3 dynamic stability is given, but there exists a mall sector ( 23
17 ) where this stability is suspended and that is just the range where
=0.9
the SOYUZ capsule for M = 0.9 conducts its trimmed ight (M

trim
18.1 ).
Other Motions
1
In the Russian literature the dynamic derivative of pitch motion is indicated by

z
m
.
z which is proportional to Cmq + Cm
54
1.6
axial force coefficient C
1.5
1.4
M=0.6
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.78
M=2.52
M=5.96
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.14. Axial force coecient Cx as function of the angle of attack , [11]
0.1
normal force coefficient Cz
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
M=0.6
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.78
M=2.52
M=5.96
0.3
0.35
0.4
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.15. Normal force coecient Cz as function of the angle of attack , [11]
4.3 SOYUZ (Russia)
55
M=0.6
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.78
M=2.52
M=5.96
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.16. Aerodynamic performance L/D as function of the angle of attack ,

[11]
pitch moment coefficient Cm
0.04
M=0.6
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.78
M=2.52
M=5.96
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.17. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack ,

[11]. Moment reference point: xref = 0.37 D1 , zref = 0.039 D1 .
56
4 Aerodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Capsules and Probes 30

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
0
3
Mach number
Fig. 4.18. Trim angle of attack trim as function of the freestream Mach number
0.6
M=0.9
dynamic pitch derivative
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
180 160 140 120 100 80 60
angle of attack
40
20
z
Fig. 4.19. Dynamic derivative of pitch motion m
as function of the angle of
z
attack for freestream Mach number M = 0.9, [11]
4.3 SOYUZ (Russia)
57
The SOYUZ capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that

only the dynamic derivative of pitch motion is relevant.
4.3.4
Peculiarities
In the following we describe the determination of a trim line in the way

mentioned in Section 4.1. For a given trajectory point the coordinates xcp , zcp
can be computed from a numerical solution2 of the governing equations by
the set of equations, which describes the general formulation of the center of
pressure and which can be found in [1]. Then trimmed ight for a prescribed
trajectory point is feasible for all the center-of-gravity positions which meet
eq. (4.3).
As an example we extract for hypersonic ight (M = 5.96) from Figs.
4.14 and 4.15 for trim = 25 the axial and normal force coecients
CX,trim = 1.28 and CZ,trim = 0.20. Further we take over the center of
pressure coordinates reported in [11], which are set to xcp = 0.60D1 and
zcp = 0.0D1 . For these values the evaluation of eq. (4.3) is plotted in Fig.
4.20.
Fig. 4.20. Center-of-gravity locations for trimmed ight in the hypersonic Mach
number regime. Data taken from Figs. 4.14 and 4.15 for trim = 25 and M =
5.96.
2
Of course, the center of pressure is also subject of measurements.
58
4.4
ARD (Aerodynamic Re-entry Demonstrator)

(Europe)
After the cancellation of the European HERMES project3 in 1993 due to

budget constraints and political uncertainties the European Space Agency
ESA decided to develop a non-winged space vehicle in order to demonstrate
Europeans capability for mastering the atmospheric re-entry process on the
basis of the know-how gained by the intensive technological activities in the
frame of the HERMES program. For supporting this objective further technological work was dened and conducted in the frame of ESAs MSTP4
program, which has accompanied the non-winged space vehicle project.
Due to the low budgeting a space vehicle was selected having the shape of a
down-scaled APOLLO capsule, [12]. It was foreseen to bring this capsule into
space on top of the ARIANE V launcher for performing a suborbital ight. A
main topic for the subsequent re-entry mission was to measure and generate
reliable aerothermodynamic and thermal ight data as much as possible for
the validation and calibration of the theoretical and numerical design and
prediction methods. Therefore this capsule got the name Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator ARD. The total mass of the ARD capsule has amounted
to 2717 kg, [13]. Its one and only (successful) ight took place on October
21. 1998.
4.4.1
Fig. 4.21 shows typical events and images of the ARD program. As already
mentioned, due to a limited budget, the conguration of the ARD capsule
was a down-scaled APOLLO shape (Fig. 4.22), where in the aft part some
congurational dierences are available (compare Fig. 4.3 with Fig. 4.23).
4.4.2
One of the reasons for the selection of a APOLLO type shape for the ARD
capsule was, that the aerodynamics are very similar in both cases. It can be
expected that this is true at least for angles of attack 33 , because then
the aft part of the capsule lies in the hypersonic shadow of the free-stream,
see Section 4.2.
Therefore the basic aerodynamic data base is given by the diagrams Figs.
4.4 - 4.7. From the APOLLO project it was known that the trim angle of
attack in hypersonic ow regime measured during ight was approximately
3 lower than the predicted one. During the technology work in the frame
3
The HERMES project was an European program for realizing Europes autonomous access to space by a winged re-entry vehicle to be launched on top
of the ARIANE V rocket, [14].
MSTP: Manned Space Transportation Programme.
4.4 ARD (Aerodynamic Re-entry Demonstrator) (Europe)
59
Fig. 4.21. ARD: Capsule recovery after landing in the Pacic ocean on October
21. 1998 (left); the heatshield after ight (middle), [15]; skin friction lines of a
numerical Navier-Stokes solution (right), [16].
Fig. 4.22. 3D shape presentation of the ARD capsule
of the MSTP program it could be shown that this behavior was mainly due
to real gas eects of the heated air streaming around the vehicle, [17]. This
was proved by numerical solutions of the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations,
which had included the physical description of the equilibrium as well as
the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of real gases, and further by a limited
number of investigations in the high-enthalpy facilities F4 of ONERA in
France and HEG of DLR in Germany. With these results the APOLLO data
base was updated, [12, 19].
Longitudinal Motion
In Fig. 4.24 we consider the pitching moment as function of the angle of attack
for hypersonic Mach numbers, where the data of APOLLO for M = 5 and
10 are compared with values of the updated APOLLO data base (ARD data
60
Fig. 4.23. Shape denition of the ARD capsule, [18, 19]
base) for M = 10 and 29, [19]. Three of the curves give more or less the same
trim angle, while for M = 29 the negative trim angle is somewhat lower.
This reects the cognition that with increasing hypersonic Mach number the
negative trim angles decrease.
Free ight data measured along the re-entry trajectory, which are extracted
from the diagrams reported in [12, 13] and [19], are plotted in Fig. 4.25. The
diagram above shows the trim angle of attack trim , whereas the axial and
normal force coecients CX and CZ are drawn in the remaining diagrams.
It is to be mentioned that the CX and CZ data points have as a parameter
the trim angles given in the upper diagram. The general trend is that with
increasing negative trim angle the force coecients CX and CZ diminish
which is in agreement with Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.
Lateral Motion
The ARD capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that no lateral
aerodynamic characteristics exist.
61
0.03
M=5 original APOLLO
M=10 original APOLLO
M=10 updated APOLLO
M=29 updated APOLLO
pitch moment coefficient C
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.24. Pitching moment of the original APOLLO data base for M = 5 and
10 compared with values of an updated APOLLO data base (ARD data base) for
M = 10 and 29. Moment reference point: xref = 0.26D1 and zref = 0.0353D1 .
4.4.3
Pitch Motion
The dynamic pitch derivative Cmq + Cm as function of the Mach number
and with trim as parameter is plotted in Fig. 4.26. This data is taken from
[19]. It can be seen that just below M = 1 the vehicle becomes dynamically
unstable (Cmq + Cm > 0) and the degree of instability grows up to M
0.5.
This behavior is somewhat in contradiction to the APOLLO data. Considering for example the M = 0.8 case, which has a trim angle of attack of
trim 15.5 (Fig. 4.27(below)), we nd from Fig. 4.26 Cmq + Cm 0.2
for the ARD capsule, which means that the vehicle is dynamically unstable,
and from Fig. 4.9 Cmq + Cm 0.7 for APOLLO indicating strong dynamic stability. We have no explanation for that.
4.4.4
Peculiarities
As mentioned earlier the trim angles of attack measured during the re-entry
ight are lower than the predicted ones. We demonstrate this in Fig. 4.27,
where the ARD free ight data in the hypersonic ow regime are compared
with the values of the updated APOLLO data base (diagram above), [13].
62
trim
18
trim ARD free flight
20
22
30
25
20
15
C ARD free flight

x
1.4
x
10
1.38
1.36
1.34
30
25
20
15
10
0.07
Cz
C ARD free flight

z
0.075
0.08
30
25
20
15
10
Mach number
Fig. 4.25. ARD free ight data, [12, 13]. Trim angle of attack trim (above), axial
force coecient CX (middle) and normal force coecient CZ (below) as function of
the Mach number. Moment reference point: xref = 0.26D1 and zref = 0.0353D1 .
Note: The Mach number values on the abscissa decrease from left to right. This
improves the understanding since the re-entry process starts at the highest Mach
number.
As expected the free ight values are approximately 2 lower than the data
of the updated APOLLO data base, which is denitely due to the inuence
of the real gas eects in the ow, [12, 17]. The diagram below presents the
ARD free ight trim angles of attack including super- and subsonic values.
A maximum of the negative trim angles is reached in low supersonic ow.
On the basis of the ARD free-stream trim angles plotted in Fig. 4.27 the
aerodynamic force coecients CX and CZ of the ARD measurements are
compared with the CX and CZ values of the original APOLLO data5 , taken
from Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.
The ARD free ight data of the axial force coecient CX are higher than
the values of the original APOLLO data base, Fig. 4.28 (above), which is a
clear indication for the inuence of the real gas eects. In order to corroborate
this hypothesis more than 120 numerical solutions of Euler and Navier-Stokes
5
The angle of attack interpolation is carried out for the M = 10 curve. This can
be partly justied by the Mach number independence principle of aerodynamic
variables in hypersonic ow (see [1]).
63
mq
0.3
dynamic pitch derivative C
+C
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
1.5
Mach number
2.5
Fig. 4.26. Dynamic pitch derivative Cmq + Cm as function of the Mach number
and with trim as parameter. Moment reference point: xref = 0.26D1 and zref =
0.0353D1 .
trim
15
20
25
ARD free flight

trim
updated APOLLO
trim
30
30
25
20
15
10
Mach number
trim
15
20
25
trim
30
30
25
20
15
10
ARD free flight

5
Mach number
Fig. 4.27. ARD free ight trim angle of attack, [13]. Comparison with updated
APOLLO data in the hypersonic regime (above). Total Mach number regime of
data (below). Moment reference point: xref = 0.26D1 and zref = 0.0353D1 .
64
equations with perfect gas, equilibrium and non-equilibrium real gas thermodynamics were conducted in the frame of the MSTP program as well as the
ARD postight analysis activities. As is exhibited in Fig. 4.29 the CX values
based on the numerical solutions with real gas thermodynamics, either equilibrium or non-equilibrium, correlate much better with the free ight data
than the perfect gas solutions do, [17, 20]. The normal force coecients CZ
(ARD free ight) are lower (negative values!) than the original APOLLO
data, Fig. 4.28 (below), where in that case the correlation with the hot gas
physics is not so unambiguous.
ARD free flight

original APOLLO
1.38
1.4
1.36
1.34
1.32
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
trim
0.08
ARD free flight
original APOLLO
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
trim
Fig. 4.28. ARD free ight aerodynamic force coecients. Comparison with the
original APOLLO data, taken from Figs. 4.4 and 4.5.
65
1.44
axial force coefficient Cx
1.42
perfect
equilibrium
nonequilibrium
flight
1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
5
10
15
Mach number
20
25
Fig. 4.29. Inuence of real gas eects in hypersonic ow on the axial force coefcient CX . Comparison of ARD free ight data with numerical solutions of Euler
and Navier-Stokes equations with hot gas thermodynamcics, [17, 20].
66
4.5
HUYGENS (Cassini Orbiter) (Europe)
There was the joint European - U.S. (ESA / NASA) enterprise for a space
ight to the planet Saturn with the spacecraft Mariner-Mark II Cassini
Saturn Orbiter. This space vehicle consisted of the two elements:
The Cassini laboratory for the investigation of the features of the planet
Saturn including its rings,
the HUYGENS probe as a passenger experiment of the Cassini Orbiter, see
Fig. 4.30, with the mission to investigate the composition of the atmosphere
of the largest Saturn moon Titan including the landing on its surface,
[21, 22].
The Cassini Saturn Orbiter was launched in Oct. 1997. After a 6.7 year
ight using the technique of gravity assist6 the orbiter arrived at Saturn in
July 2004. The passenger device HUYGENS was released from the Cassini
Orbiter on 25. Dec. 2004. On 14. Jan. 2005 HUYGENS had conducted successfully a parachute supported landing on the surface of Saturns moon
Titan, Fig. 4.31.
One of the purposes of the HUYGENS Titan mission was to increase the
knowledge about the composition of Titans atmosphere. Before the launch
of the Cassini Orbiter in 1997 it was assumed that the Titan atmosphere
consists of Ar, CH4 and N2 , where the related mole fractions depend on the
altitude in this atmosphere. Yelle, [23], supposed a nominal atmosphere of
2% Ar, 3% CH4 and 95% N2 .
Today, we know that in the stratosphere of Titan the composition of the
atmosphere consists of Ar 0%, CH4 1.4% and N2 98.4%, which
changes with decreasing altitude, for example for 32 km, to Ar 0%, CH4
4.9% and N2 95.0%, [24].
4.5.1
The HUYGENS probe consists of a blunted cone with a semi-apertural angle

of 60 and a nose radius of 1.25 m. The base diameter is 2.7 m. All geometric data are given in Fig. 4.32. Fig. 4.33 shows 3-dimensional views of the
conguration.
4.5.2
The HUYGENS probe was designed to conduct a ballistic entry into Titans
atmosphere. For such kinds of entry the ballistic factor
6
Gravity assist means to y along trajectories, which y by on several planets

in order to get enough orbital energy, due to the related gravity of the planets,
for the travel into the deep space. In the case of the Saturn mission the Cassini
Orbiter has passed two times the planet Venus, once the Earth and once the
planet Jupiter.
4.5 HUYGENS (Cassini Orbiter) (Europe)
67
Fig. 4.30. HUYGENS probe as a passenger of the Cassini Orbiter, [24]
m =
m
Sref CD
plays a particular role, where m is the vehicle mass, Sref the reference area
and CD the drag, [1]. The ballistic factor is a measure for the manner how
probes perform a ballistic entry with a specied landing distortion. Ballistic
probes have the advantage that they do not require guidance and control
means, in contrary to lifting capsules or probes. Therefore these concepts are
less costly than the lifting ones, but they need low ballistic factors.
To ensure a stable ballistic ight and to master the thermal loads during
entry in a not well-known atmosphere was the aerothermodynamic challenge
of this mission. A proper ballistic entry can be achieved for probes with a
ballistic factor m 30, [1, 22]. HUYGENS possess a mass of mHUY GEN S =
318.62 kg, a reference area of Sref = 5.725 m2 and it can be assumed that the
68
Fig. 4.31. HUYGENS probe in the integration hall (left), artist view of the
HUYGENS probe during entry in Titans atmosphere (right), [24]
Fig. 4.32. Shape denition of the HUYGENS probe, [21, 22]
4.5 HUYGENS (Cassini Orbiter) (Europe)
69
Fig. 4.33. 3D shape presentation of the HUYGENS probe
drag coecient for high Mach numbers lies approximately between 1.45
CD 1.50, which was estimated from the data of BEAGLE2, Section 4.6,
and OREX, Section 4.7. In conclusion the ballistic factor of the HUYGENS
probe ranges between 39, 38 m 37.10, which seems to be an appropriate
value.
Longitudinal Motion
The author had no access to the static stability data.
Lateral Motion
The HUYGENS probe is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that
4.5.3
The author had no access to the dynamic stability data.
70
4.6
BEAGLE2 (UK)
On June 2, 2003 a space probe called Mars Express was launched on top of a
Russian SOYUZ Fregat rocket to y to the planet Mars. The probe carried
besides others a small Mars lander called BEAGLE2. The mission of BEAGLE2 was rstly to perform an autonomous entry into the Mars atmosphere
with a subsequent uncontrolled (un-propelled) landing, and secondly to conduct on the Martian surface a couple of scientic experiments. BEAGLE2
was designed, developed and built by a consortium of British Universities
and an industrial company. The landing process of BEAGLE2 on the Martian surface was foreseen for December 24, 2003. Unfortunately the landing
failed and the lander was lost.
Nevertheless there exists a rough aerodynamic data set which was based on
numerical ow eld computations for 37 trajectory points (partly considering
the particular properties of Mars CO2 atmosphere) and on the evaluations
and scalings including interpolations and extrapolations of the aerodynamic
data of corresponding other probes like HUYGENS and STARDUST, [25, 26].
In Fig. 4.34 some examples of the numerical and experimental data for
establishing the aerodynamic data set are displayed.
Fig. 4.34. BEAGLE2 shape: grid for the numerical ow eld computation with
M = 3, = 0 (left), Mach number contours in the plane of symmetry for
a ow eld computation with M = 6, = 8 (middle), Schlieren photograph
performed in the Oxford University gun tunnel with the same ow conditions as in
the numerical solution (right), [25, 27].
4.6.1
The front part of BEAGLE2 consists of a cone with a semi-apertural angle

of 60 , which is blunted by a sphere. The aft part of the conguration is
4.6 BEAGLE2 (UK)
71
composed of a truncated cone conversely matched to the front part. The semiapertural angle of this cone amounts to 46.25 , Figs. 4.35 and 4.36. The front
part of BEAGLE2 has some similarities with the HUYGENS (see section
4.5) and the STARDUST shapes. This was the reason why the BEAGLE2
developing team had performed the establishment of the aerodynamic data
base partly by a scaling procedure applied to the aerodynamic data sets of
these congurations.
Fig. 4.35. 3D shape presentation of the BEAGLE2 probe
4.6.2
The aerodynamic data presented in the following four diagrams come exclusively from [25]. The axial force coecient CX is given for 2.5 M 15.
The angle of attack regime is mainly 5 0 except for M = 15
( 12 0 ), Fig. 4.37. There are two Mach numbers (M = 6 and
15) for which the normal force coecient CZ is given for angles of attack up
to 30 . For all the other Mach numbers just one point ( = 5 ) of CZ
is available, Fig. 4.38. Since the data for CX and CZ are so heterogeneous
one can only nd few points where the lift-to-drag ratio can be determined,
Fig. 4.39. The pitching moment is known for M = 15 in the angle of attack
regime 30 0 , while for all other Mach numbers M = 2.5, 5, 7.0
values are only given for 5 0 , Fig. 4.40.
72
Fig. 4.36. Shape denition of the BEAGLE2 probe, [25, 27]
Longitudinal Motion
One can generally state that the characteristics of the aerodynamic coecients of the BEAGLE2 probe are similar to most of the other capsules presented in this chapter, like the VIKING type, APOLLO, SOYUZ, HUYGENS
or STARDUST congurations. The lift-to-drag ratio seems to be slightly
lower compared to other capsules or probes and it is doubtful if L/D reaches
0.3 in hypersonic ight regime for = 30 , Fig. 4.39. Finally, the pitching
moment coecient diagram demonstrates that with Cm / < 0 the shape
behaves statically stable despite the fact that the moment reference point is
positioned in the nose. The experience from the VIKING2 shape was that
through two shifts of the moment reference point (center-of-gravity) along
the positive x-axis and the negative z-axis (see Figs. 8.1, 8.2), the conguration can be made trimmable, whereas static stability is retained (compare
with Figs. 4.56 - 4.59).
Lateral Motion
The BEAGLE2 probe is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that
4.6 BEAGLE2 (UK)
73
1.55
1.5
M=2.5
M=5.0
M=7.0
M=7.5
M=10
M=15
1.45
1.4
1.35
14
12
10
8
6
angle of attack
Fig. 4.37. Axial force coecient CX as function of the angle of attack , [25]
0.05
0
0.05
M=6
M=7
M=15
M=2.5
M=5
M=7.5
M=10
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.38. Normal force coecient CZ as function of the angle of attack , [25]
74
0.4
M=2.5
M=7.0
M=15
lifttodrag ratio L/D
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
14
12
10
8
6
angle of attack
Fig. 4.39. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack , [25]
0.2
M=2.5
M=5.0
M=7.0
M=15
pitching moment coefficient C
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack

[25]. Moment reference point xref = 0., zref = 0.
4.6 BEAGLE2 (UK)
4.6.3
Dynamic stability data is not available.
75
76
4.7
OREX (Japan)
In the second half of the 1980s Japans government decided to start a program
with the intention to allow for an autonomous access to space, as this was
already the case in Europe at that time. The main objective of this program
was to develop an unmanned winged space vehicle to be launched on top of
Japans H-II rocket. This space vehicle got the name HOPE (H-II Orbiting
Plane). In this environment Japan planned the development of some demonstrators with which an analysis of specic parts of ight phases and impacts
during the ight along re-entry trajectories could be conducted.
The rst demonstrator was the Orbital Re-entry Experiment (OREX),
which was a probe ying, after having performed a complete orbit, along a
ballistic re-entry path. The purpose of this ight was to provide aerothermal
data (wall temperatures and heat transfer rates) for the design of the thermal
protection system (TPS) of HOPE, [28].
With the second test vehicle, called ALFLEX (Automatic Landing Flight
Experiment), the automatic landing process of HOPE was simulated in particular the guidance, navigation and control system in connection with the
identication of the subsonic aerodynamics. The shape of ALFLEX was a
down-scaled HOPE vehicle. In July and August 1996 a couple of drop tests
were conducted in Woomera, Australia. Thereby ALFLEX was lifted by a
helicopter to an altitude of approximately 1500 m and then released.
A third demonstrator vehicle was designed and manufactured with the objective to test the hypersonic ight phase of HOPE. The name of this vehicle
was HYFLEX ( Hypersonic Flight Experiment). HYFLEX consisted of a slender lifting body shape with two laterally mounted winglets for ight control.
This vehicle has performed a suborbital ight with a maximum altitude of
110 km. The objective of this ight was the demonstration of the cross-range
capability in the hypersonic ight phase, the delivery of hypersonic aerodynamic data and the examination of guidance and control technologies for the
operation along ambitious ight trajectories. HYFLEX has carried out one
successful ight in Feb. 1996, but it could not be rescued after its splash into
the Pacic Ocean.
In Feb. 1994 OREX was successfully launched on top of a H-II rocket.
After performing a complete orbit cycle the re-entry process was initiated
by a deorbiting boost of a propulsion system. Fig. 4.41 shows the original
OREX probe in an assembly hall (left), an artist view of the hypersonic ight
through Earth atmosphere (middle) and an engineering drawing presenting
some details of the back cover (right).
4.7.1
OREX consisted of a cone with a semi-apertural angle of 50 , which is

blunted by a sphere segment with a radius of 1350 mm. The diameter of
OREX amounts to 3400 mm. An illustrating three-dimensional presentation
4.7 OREX (Japan)
77
Fig. 4.41. OREX probe: vehicle in the assembly hall (left), synthetic image of
the vehicle during re-entry (middle), engineering drawing with some constructional
details on the back cover (right), [29]
of OREX is given in Fig. 4.42. Fig. 4.43 exhibits an engineering drawing

including measures, [30, 31].
Fig. 4.42. 3D shape presentation of the OREX probe
4.7.2
As already mentioned OREX mission was to measure the temperatures and

the heat uxes in the heat shield area during the most loaded part of the
78
Fig. 4.43. Engineering drawing dening the shape of the OREX probe, [30, 31]
re-entry phase. An evaluation of these measurements and comparison with

the results of numerical simulations can be found in [1, 30, 32].
Longitudinal Motion
Since OREX has performed a ballistic ight, this means ight without lift,
the ight trajectory is determined only by the aerodynamic drag. The drag
data available come from numerical investigations of various probe shapes,
where also the OREX conguration was considered, [28]7 . We present these
drag data as function of the Mach number in Fig. 4.44.
The values of the drag of OREX presented in [28] are relatively high and are
denoted as fore-body drag. Unfortunately it is not quite clear, if the base drag is
included or not in the given values, because it seems that the drag values of the
other shapes (APOLLO, ARD, BEAGLE2, etc.) to which [28] refers, obviously
are total drags.
4.7 OREX (Japan)
79
2
1.9
drag coefficient C
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
1
3
4
Mach number
Fig. 4.44. Drag coecient CD as function of the free-stream Mach number M ,

[33]
Lateral Motion
The OREX probe is an axisymmetric conguration which performs essentially a ballistic ight. This means that it is not envisaged that the ight is
assisted by lift. Therefore the mission trajectory embodies no banking and
inuences through side forces are not expected. Because of that no lateral
aerodynamic characteristics exist.
4.7.3
Dynamic stability data are not available.
80
4.8
VIKING-Type (Europe)
One part of Europes activities for an autonomous access to space was the
development of the winged re-entry vehicle HERMES (see Chapter 6, Section 6.11). In the beginning of the 1990s Europes space authority ESA had
been aware that due to technical and budgetary reasons a realization of the
HERMES project could no longer be pursued. Therefore the project was cancelled. Since the goal of an autonomous access to space at that time was still
existing, also in conjunction with Europes contribution to servicing the International Space Station ISS, a new program8 was launched, where a cheaper
and technically more reliable solution was aimed for.
In this environment a capsule solution was favored. Therefore the aerospace
companies Aerospatiale in France and Dasa in Germany started in 1995 in the
frame of some phase A studies, initiated by ESA, investigations of capsule
congurations of VIKING-type. VIKING-type shapes are characterized by
very blunt front cones (semi-apertural angles 1 of approximately 80 ) and
aft cones with dierent semi-apertural angles 2 . The shape of the front part
is in contrast to the well known capsules APOLLO and SOYUZ, which hold
spherical caps.
Under the acronym CRV/CTV9 Dasa investigated10 the aerodynamics of
VIKING-type shapes with 2 = 14 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 25 , 27 , [34, 35, 36].
Aerospatiale has conducted intensive work on the VIKING-type shape with
2 = 20 , [37]. In the course of the investigations the VIKING-type shape
with 2 = 25 was called VIKING1 and with 2 = 20 VIKING2.
Besides wind tunnel tests, a great part of the investigations was carried
out by numerical simulations. The Figs. 4.45, 4.46, 4.47 exhibit for various
trajectory points some evaluations of these computations.
4.8.1
The VIKING-type shape consists of a cone with a semi-apertural angle 1 =

80 , which is blunted at the apex by a small sphere segment, followed by a
torus segment with a sphere radius of 0.02D1 and a reversed aft part cone
with various semi-apertural angles 2 . In Fig. 4.48 a 3D presentation of the
VIKING1 shape is shown. The detailed measures of the VIKING1 and the
VIKING2 shapes are given in Fig. 4.49.
8
9
10
MSTP: Manned Space Transportation Programme.

CRV: Crew Rescue Vehicle, CTV: Crew Transport Vehicle.
Partly together with the National Aerospace Laboratory NLR of The Netherlands.
4.8 VIKING-Type (Europe)
81
Fig. 4.45. Numerical solutions of ow past the VIKING1 shape. M = 0.9, =

10 Navier-Stokes solution, [35, 36] (left), M = 1.5, = 20 Euler solution,
[38, 39] (middle), M = 3, = 25 Navier-Stokes solution, [35, 40] (right).
Shown are pressure contours log (p/p ).
Fig. 4.46. Numerical solutions past the VIKING1 shape. M = 3, = 25 ,

Navier-Stokes solution, wall temperature rear view (left) and skin friction lines front
view (middle), M = 18.5, = 25 Navier-Stokes solution for the VIKING1
shape with the wind tunnel sting (log (p/p )), (right), [35].
4.8.2
The VIKING2 shape was investigated in the Mach number regime 0.45
arman institute (VKI) in BrusM 3.95 in the S1 wind tunnel of the von K
sels, Belgium, and the HST and SST wind tunnels of the National Aerospace
Laboratory NLR in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The aerodynamic data
for the hypersonic Mach numbers were generated by numerical simulations
solving the Euler equations and in one case also the Navier-Stokes equations,
[37].
The aerodynamic data base established for the VIKING1 shape was created by approximate design procedures like local inclination methods (e.g.,
a modied Newton method, [8]) for the supersonic-hypersonic regime, panel
methods for the subsonic regime, and numerical simulations on the basis
82
Fig. 4.47. Numerical solutions past the VIKING2 shape. Navier-Stokes solutions.
M = 1.15, = 20 (left), [35, 36], M = 19.5, = 17.3 , shape with the
wind tunnel sting (right), [35, 40]. Shown are pressure contours log (p/p ).
Fig. 4.48. 3D shape presentation of the VIKING1 capsule
of the full Navier-Stokes equations. These numerical simulations have covered the Mach numbers 0.5 M 2, [36] , and the Mach numbers
3.0 M 19.5, [35].
In the following ten gures (Figs. 4.50 - 4.59) we present the aerodynamic coecients of the longitudinal motion of the VIKING2 shape. The
aerodynamic coecients, in the angle of attack regime considered here
( 30 0 ), are not very much aected by the aft cone angle 2 . In
83
Fig. 4.49. Shape denitions of VIKING1 (left) and VIKING2 (right), [35]
order to quantify the inuence of 2 on the aerodynamic coecients we have

plotted for some discrete trajectory points these coecients for the VIKING1
shape within the diagrams of the VIKING2 results (Figs. 4.63 - 4.66).
Longitudinal Motion
The axial force coecient CX for the subsonic-transonic and supersonichypersonic Mach number regimes is plotted in Figs. 4.50, 4.51. The general
tendency of CX for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers consists in a slight
increase of the CX values with increasing negative angles of attack (local maxima exist around 10 ) and an abatement afterwards. For supersonichypersonic Mach numbers CX is highest for = 0 and decreases then monotonically for growing negative s11 . The above description of the CX behavior seems to be characteristical for capsules as can be seen by comparison
with the APOLLO data, see Section 4.2.
It is physically obvious that the normal force coecient CZ must be zero
for = 0 and negative for larger negative angles of attack ( < 0 ), in
particular for 90 . But depending on the Mach number CZ evolves at
rst positive (0.45 M 1.47) with decreasing and becomes negative at
the latest for 30 , Figs. 4.52, 4.53. For higher Mach numbers (M
1.5) CZ develops always negative.
11
The course of the M = 1.47 curve is untypical and can not be explained physically.
84
1.6
1.5
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.50. Axial force coecient CX as function of the angle of attack for
subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [37]
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
1.2
1.1
1
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [37]
85
normal force coefficient CZ
0.1
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
0.1
0.2
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.52. Normal force coecient CZ as function of the angle of attack for
normal force coefficient CZ
0.1
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
0.1
0.2
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [37] .
86
The aerodynamic performance L/D behaves like expected with higher values for subsonic Mach numbers (M = 0.45 and 0.50) and lower values for
higher Mach numbers, whereby it is interesting to see that for Mach numbers M = 1.47 and 2.01 L/D is lowest compared to the other supersonichypersonic Mach numbers for || 25 , Figs. 4.54, 4.55. In general the
lift-to-drag ratios L/D for the VIKING2 capsule seem to be slightly larger
than for the APOLLO capsule.
The data of the pitching moment coecient Cm , given in [37], are referred
to the reference location in the nose tip (xref = zref = 0), Figs. 4.56, 4.57.
Nevertheless they indicate that the vehicle is everywhere statically stable,
but cannot be trimmed due to the zero z-oset (zref = 0). A realistic centerof-gravity position, for example, is dened by xcog = xref = 0.34 D1 and
zcog = zref = 0.0218 D1 . Transforming the pitching moment data to this
reference position leads obviously to the situation that the vehicle remains
statically stable and is now trimmable in the whole Mach number regime,
Figs. 4.58, 4.59. The trim angles range from trim 10 for subsonic
Mach numbers until trim 25 in the hypersonic regime.
As already mentioned earlier it is often dicult for the internal lay-out
designer to meet accurately a prescribed center-of-gravity position. Therefore
it is of interest to know the trimline as it is dened in Section 4.1, which
oers the possibility to shift the coordinates of the center-of-gravity location
(xcog , zcog ) to some extent, while the trim status is kept.
For three Mach numbers the trim angles of attack are extracted from the
diagrams of Figs. 4.58, 4.59, namely M = 0.5, trim 10 , M =
0.9, trim 16 and M = 3.95, trim 22 . With the associated
values for CX , CZ and xcp the trim line can be computed. The trim lines for
the Mach numbers M = 0.5 and 0.9 indicate always negative zcog values,
but for M = 3.95 the trim line crosses at xcog 0.75 the zcog = 0 barrier
denoting positive z-osets, Fig. 4.60. We have plotted these trim lines into
the engineering drawing of the VIKING2 shape in order to have a true to
scale impression of the trim line positions, Fig. 4.61.
Of course the usual presentation of the aerodynamic force coecients for
capsules occurs in body xed coordinates, viz. the axial force coecient CX
and the normal force coecient CZ , but sometimes the depiction of the aerodynamic forces in aerodynamic coordinates, viz. the lift coecient CL and
the drag coecient CD , is also valuable. Therefore we show these data in Fig.
4.62.
The VIKING1 shape has a semi-apertural angle of the aft cone of 2 = 25 ,
Fig. 4.49. We compare now some numerical solutions, mainly on the basis
of the Navier-Stokes equations, with VIKING2 data, [35]. The aerodynamic
data for the four trajectory points M = 0.5, = 3 , M = 0.8, = 5 ,
M = 0.9, = 10 and M = 1.15, = 20 are considered. These
data are plotted together with the VIKING2 results, Figs. 4.63, 4.65, 4.67.
The CX values of M = 0.5 and 1.15 do not agree well with the VIKING2
data, in contrast to the values for M = 0.8 and 0.9. For CZ we have the
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
0.5
87
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.54. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic Mach numbers, [37]
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.55. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for
88
pitching moment coefficient Cm
0.12
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.56. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack

for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [37]. Moment reference point xref = 0.,
zref = 0.
0.12
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack

for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [37]. Moment reference point xref = 0,
zref = 0.
89
0.06
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack

for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [37]. Moment reference point xref = 0.34,
zref = 0.0218.
0.06
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.59. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack for
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [37]. Moment reference point xref = 0.34,
zref = 0.0218.
90
zcoordinate of centerofgravity zcog
0.02
0.01
M=0.5,
= 10
M=0.9,
= 16
trim
trim
M=3.95, trim = 22
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
xcoordinate of centerofgravity x
cog
Fig. 4.60. Line of center-of-gravity locations for trimmed ight for the three
trajectory points M = 0.5, trim = 10 , M = 0.9, trim = 16 , M = 3.95,
trim = 22 taken from the Figs. 4.58 and 4.59.
Fig. 4.61. Line of center-of-gravity locations, plotted into the VIKING2 shape, for
trimmed ight for the three trajectory points M = 0.5, trim = 10 , M = 0.9,
trim = 16 , M = 3.95, trim = 22 . See Fig. 4.60.
91
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
lift coefficient CL
lift coefficient C
picture that the data for M = 0.5, 0.9 and 1.15 compare acceptably with
the VIKING2 ones, which is not the case for M = 0.8. Finally the pitching
moment data of M = 0.5, 0.8 and 0.9 do not compare suciently, in contrast
to the one of M = 1.15.
For the supersonic-hypersonic trajectory points M = 1.5, = 20 ,
M = 2, = 20 and 25 , M = 3, = 25 , M = 5, = 25 ,
M = 15, = 25 and M = 18.5, = 25 , the agreement with the
VIKING2 data is much better, except for M = 1.5, Figs. 4.64, 4.66, 4.68.
A conclusion about these data is dicult, since some of the deviations are
certainly owing to a lack of accuracy of the numerical solutions.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
0.1
0
35
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
0.1
30
25
20
15
10
0
35
30
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
35
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
drag coefficient CD
drag coefficient C
angle of attack
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
0.6
35
30
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.62. Lift and drag coecients as function of the angle of attack , [37].
Subsonic-transonic regime: left plots; supersonic-hypersonic regime: right plots.
Lateral Motion
The VIKING-type capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of
that no lateral aerodynamic characteristics exist.
92
1.6
1.5
1.4
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.15
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.63. Some axial force coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations
for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the CX diagram of Fig. 4.50, [35]. Subsonictransonic Mach numbers.
1.6
1.5
1.4
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
M=1.50
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=5.0
M=15.0
M=18.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
40
35
30
25
20
angle of attack
15
10
Fig. 4.64. Some axial force coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the CX diagram of Fig. 4.51, [35].
Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers.
93
0.1
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.15
0.1
0.2
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.65. Some normal force coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the CZ diagram of Fig. 4.52, [35].
Subsonic-transonic Mach numbers.
0.1
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
M=1.50
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=5.0
M=15.0
M=18.5
0.1
0.2
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.66. Some normal force coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the CZ diagram of Fig. 4.53, [35].
Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers.
94
4 Aerodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Capsules and Probes 0.06

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
M=0.45
M=0.50
M=0.70
M=0.90
M=1.05
M=1.15
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.15
0.03
0.04
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.67. Some pitching moment coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the Cm diagram of Fig. 4.58,
[35]. Subsonic-transonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.34,
zref = 0.0218.
0.06
M=1.47
M=2.01
M=3.95
M=10.0
M=19.0
M=22.3
M=1.50
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=5.0
M=15.0
M=18.5
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
40
35
30
25
20
15
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.68. Some pitching moment coecients evaluated from numerical ow simulations for the VIKING1 shape embedded into the Cm diagram of Fig. 4.59,
[35]. Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.34,
zref = 0.0218.
4.8.3
95
The dynamic stability of the VIKING-type shapes was not investigated. Nevertheless in [37] pitch damping values (Cmq + Cm ) are given, which come
from the ARD capsule. The idea behind that is, that capsules often have a
similar dynamic behavior. For completeness we have plotted these data in
Fig. 4.69.
pitch damping coefficient C
+C
mq
0.5
0.4
0.3
M=0.3
M=0.5
M=0.7
M=1.1
M=50
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
Fig. 4.69. Pitch damping coecient Cm + Cmq as function of the angle of attack
[37]. Moment reference point xref = 0.34, zref = 0.0218.
96
4.9
CARINA (Italy)
In the late 1980s and the early 1990s there was a worldwide renaissance of
interests in new space transportation systems as well as space explorations
and utilizations. The HERMES program in Europe, the HOPE project in
Japan and the NASP and X-33 projects in the United States were some of
the activities regarding new space transportation systems. Further, at that
time the decision was made to construct and assemble the International Space
Station ISS, with which, besides others, the potential was oered for scientic
experiments under microgravity conditions.
Some nations in Europe had the impression that their experience and
knowledge were not evident enough for taking part in Europes space programs. Therefore several national activities were launched in order to enhance
the research and development basis for a participation in international space
programs.
One of these activities was Italys CARINA project. CARINA was a small
system, which was composed of a re-entry module and a service module, [41].
It was planned to launch it by a small rocket or as a piggy-back passenger
of a larger space vehicle. CARINA was a testbed for learning more about
re-entry technology and microgravity processing. However, the project was
cancelled in the middle of the 1990s.
4.9.1
The Italian aerospace company ALENIA SPAZIO was the prime contractor
of the CARINA project, [41, 42]. For the re-entry module a GEMINI-like
shape was chosen, Fig. 4.70. An engineering drawing of the re-entry module
is given in Fig. 4.71. The CARINA conguration, consisting of the re-entry
and the service module, is plotted in Fig. 4.72. The gross mass of the CARINA
conguration amounts to approximately 450 kg.
Fig. 4.70. 3D shape presentation of CARINA capsule (re-entry module)
4.9 CARINA (Italy)
97
Fig. 4.71. Shape denition of the CARINA capsule (re-entry module), [41]
Fig. 4.72. CARINA conguration: Re-entry module and service module, [41]
98
4.9.2
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic coecients were determined by wind tunnel tests (AEDC
(USA) and Lavochkin (Russia)) and by numerical ow eld simulations. The
ow elds were calculated by using the Euler and the Navier-Stokes equations.
From the literature it is known that data were generated for 0.8 M
1.6 and M = 8, [41, 42], but published have been only a few of them. These
few data are plotted in Figs. 4.73 - 4.75. The axial force coecient CX for
M = 1.2 is exhibited in Fig. 4.73. The general trend of this curve is in
agreement with the data of other capsules. The same is true for the normal
force coecient CZ , Fig. 4.74, where the available data for M = 1.2 and
8 are plotted. The pitching moment coecient Cm displayed for M = 0.9
and 8, indicates static stability, when the moment reference point is given by
the center-of-gravity12.
1.5
M = 1.20
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
20
15
10
angle of attack
M = 1.2, [42]
12
Unfortunately the position of the center-of-gravity is not exactly known. However, since the Cm data are zero for angle the of attack = 0 , one knows at
least that the z-oset must be zero, which means zcog = 0.
4.9 CARINA (Italy)
99
0.04
0.02
M = 1.20
M = 8.00
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
20
15
10
angle of attack
M = 1.2 and 8, [41, 42]
M = 0.90
M = 8.00
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
20
15
10
angle of attack

for M = 0.90 and 8, [41, 42]. Moment reference point is the center-of-gravity.
100
Lateral Motion
The CARINA capsule is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of that
4.9.3
Dynamic stability investigations are not known.
4.10 AFE (Aeroassist Flight Experiment) (USA-Europe)
4.10
101
AFE (Aeroassist Flight Experiment)

(USA-Europe)
In the late 1980s and the early 1990s the U.S. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration NASA has dealt with the idea to design a space vehicle
which is able to transport cargo between dierent orbits. In that frame it was
envisaged to develop an economically operating vehicle, which had to meet
two basic requirements.
The rst one was, that the transfer from a higher to a lower Earth orbit should be conducted without the use of any propulsion system. This
class of space vehicles is referred to as Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicles
(AOTV)13 , [43, 44]. This means to build a vehicle which had aerocapturing
capabilities14 . The second condition was, that the devices and the equipment
located on the back side (behind the heat shield) of the vehicle should not
directly be impinged by high enthalpy ow coming from the stagnation point
regime of the heat shield, in order to prevent high thermal loads.
Generally axisymmetric lifting capsules have trim angles in the hypersonic
regime of order 20 , which may lead to higher thermal loads at the rear
parts of these vehicles. In such cases particular arrangements are necessary
to thermally protect these parts. In order to avoid such arrangements NASA
developed a conguration where the trim angle of attack in the hypersonic
ight regime ranges in the vicinity of 0 . This shape got the name AFE
(Aeroassisted Flight Experiment).
About ten years later a renewed interest in this shape arose at the European Space Agency (ESA) in the frame of the Mars Sample Return Orbiter
(MSRO) activities, [45, 46, 47], Fig. 4.76.
Fig. 4.76. Mars sample return orbiter (MSRO) with the AFE heat shield. NavierStokes solution, M = 9.91, perfect gas (left) [48], model with partial back cover
in the high enthalpy wind tunnel F4 of ONERA (middle) [46], synthetic image of
the MSRO in aerocapture formation (right) [46].
13
14
Later it was named ASTV Aeroassisted Space Transfer Vehicle.

Information about the aerocapturing concept can be found in [1].
102
4.10.1
The AFE shape is complex. It consists of a blunted elliptic cone with a

half angle in the symmetry plane of 60 , which is raked o at 73 to the
centerline (x-axis) whereby a circular raked plane is generated with a diameter
of D2 = 3879 mm. A skirt with a width of l1 = 336 mm is attached to the
raked plane15 . The blunt nose is an ellipsoid with an ellipticity of 2.0. The
total diameter of the shape, - that is the raked elliptic cone plus the skirt -,
amounts to D1 = 4267 mm ( 14 ft), Fig. 4.77, [43, 44].
Fig. 4.78 shows a three-dimensional presentation of the shape. In Fig. 4.79
the AFE shape including a possible package of devices and equipments on
the back side is exhibited in terms of a three views engineering drawing, [44].
In the frame of the MSRO program the AFE heat shield (Mars premier
shield) was scaled down by a factor of 14/12, which means to have a total
diameter of D1 = 3657 mm ( 12 ft), [45, 46].
Fig. 4.77. Shape denition of the AFE conguration, [43, 45, 46]
15
l1 is calculated by l1 = RS cos 60 , where RS is the skirt radius (see Fig. 4.77)

with RS = 0.1 D2 .
103
Fig. 4.78. 3D shape presentation of the AFE conguration
4.10.2
The mission of an Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle (AOTV) consists in

transporting cargo from a higher to a lower Earth orbit. This requires the
reduction of the orbital energy of the vehicle which takes place by a deep immersion into the Earth atmosphere. When the vehicle enters the atmosphere
its velocity is very high. The Mach number is around 30 and reduces normally
to approximately 15. Therefore the complete aerocapturing ight occurs in
the hypersonic ight regime. This is the reason why the aerodynamic data
base, considered here, is given only for hypersonic Mach numbers.
Longitudinal Motion
A rst campaign for the establishment of a hypersonic aerodynamic data
base was carried out in NASA Langleys cold hypersonic wind tunnels for
Mach 6 (Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel) and Mach 10 (Langley 31-Inch
Mach 10 Tunnel). The gas used in both tunnels was air. Test were also done
in Langleys Hypersonic CF4 Tunnel, [43, 44]. All these tunnels do not fulll
the free ight conditions for temperature, pressure and density, which are
usually higher than in these tunnels. The dierence between the air tunnels
and the CF4 tunnel consists in the two items, the reservoir temperature T0
and the eective ratio of specic heats ef f :
Langley 20-Inch Mach 6, T0 = 611 K, ef f = 1.40,
Mach 6, T0 = 850 K, ef f = 1.11,
Langley CF4
Langley 31-Inch Mach 10, T0 = 1027 K, ef f = 1.34.
104
Fig. 4.79. Shape denition of the AFE conguration. Engineering drawings of

top view a), front view b) and side view c), [43].
In general the ratio of specic heats is around 20% lower in the CF4 tunnel
than in the air tunnels, [43].
From later investigations for example in the HERMES and ARD projects
(see Sections 6.11 and 4.4) it is known that there exists a dependency of the
pitching moment, and therefore of the trim angle, on real gas eects. The
inuence of real gas eects are much lower on the aerodynamic performance
L/D.
To overcome these real gas problems NASAs Ames Research Center had
built the Hypervelocity Free-Flight Aerodynamic Facility (HFFAF) , which
follows the gun tunnel concept. A model is shot into a gas at rest with
conditions for temperature, pressure and density similar to free ight. The
105
evaluation of the ight trajectory, by using the ight mechanical equations

for six degree of freedom motion, delivers the aerodynamic coecients.
On this basis the aerodynamic coecients for two Mach numbers as functions of the angle of attack were determined. An eective ratio of specic heats
ef f was ascertained by comparing shock shapes (shock stand-o distance) of
shadowgraphs taken from the HFFAF tunnel with the ones of Navier-Stokes
solutions for various ef f . The outcome was that the real gas eects for these
ight conditions could be approximately simulated by using ef f = 1.2, [49].
For the ef f approach see [1]
From most of the other aerodynamic data bases for hypersonic velocities,
discussed in this book, we are aware that a Mach number independency
exists in this ight regime. An inspection of the next four gures (Figs. 4.80
- 4.83), showing the axial and normal force coecients, the lift-to-drag ratio
and the pitching moment coecient, reveals that this is true for the results
coming from the conventional Langley tunnels, but not for the HFFAF data.
The axial force coecients of the Langley data agree well with the HFFAF
data for M = 9.2, but not with the data for M = 11.8, Fig. 4.80. This is
dierent for the normal force and the lift-to-drag ratio, where the M = 11.8
HFFAF data are better in line with Langleys results than the M = 9.2 ones,
Figs. 4.81 and 4.82.
The above mentioned dierences are smaller for the pitching moment coefcients, Figs. 4.83. From Langleys results we nd a trim angle slightly larger
than zero, and from the HFFAF data a trim angle slightly lower than zero.
In the frame of the MSRO project several numerical ow eld simulations
were conducted with the goal to better understand the inuence of real gas
eects on the trim angle, [45] - [47]. For the trajectory point M = 18.7,
= 4 the pitching moment coecient, taken from [45], is shown in Fig.
4.83. It is well in line with the other data.
Lateral Motion
In the next three gures (Figs. 4.84 - 4.86) the coecients of the side force,
the rolling moment and the yawing moment are plotted as function of the
side slip angle . Since the AFE shape is symmetrical in the x z plane, Fig.
4.77, it is expected that the curves go through the origin (x = z = 0). But
this is not the case and the shown oset can only be explained, in particular
as the magnitude of the values to be measured are very small, by model and
balance misalignments, [44]. Further the angle of attack dependencies of the
values for M = 9.9 are obviously also not in line with the physics. A better
angle of attack behavior seems to be given for Mach number M = 5.94.
Nevertheless the negative derivative of the rolling moment coecients indicates a damping of the roll motions and the positive derivative of the yawing
moment coecients denotes directional stability.
The three small diagrams of Fig. 4.87 show the lateral coecients (CY , Cl ,
Cn ) as function of angle of attack for a nearly constant side slip angle .
It is conspicuous that no clear tendency of CY , Cl , Cn as function of can
106
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
M=10.05; Langley Mach 10 tunnel
M=9.20; HFFAF Nasa Ames tunnel
0.7
0.6
0.5
30
20
10
0
10
angle of attack
20
30
hypersonic Mach numbers, [43, 49].
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0
0.1
30
20
10
0
10
angle of attack
20
30
hypersonic Mach numbers, [43, 49].
107
0.6
lifttodrag ration L/D
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
30

20
10
0
10
angle of attack
20
30
Fig. 4.82. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for hypersonic
Mach numbers, [43, 49].
0.1
M=18.7; CFD frozen flow
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
30
20
10
0
10
angle of attack
20
30
hypersonic Mach numbers, [43, 45, 49]. Moment reference point given by rake-plane
center, see Fig. 4.77.
108
be observed, which emphasizes the diculties the experimentalists had to

measure the lateral characteristics of the AFE shape.
0.025
M = 9.90, = 0
M = 9.90, = 10
0.02
M = 9.90, = 10
side force coefficient C
M = 5.94, = 0
0.015
M = 5.94, = 5
M = 5.94, = 5
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
5
1
0
1
angle of yaw
Fig. 4.84. Side force coecient CY as function of the angle of yaw for hypersonic
Mach numbers, [44]
4.10.3
Data of dynamic stability investigations are not available.
109
x 10
M = 9.90, = 0
M = 9.90, = 10
rolling moment coefficient Cl
4
3
M = 9.90, = 10
M = 5.94, = 5
M = 5.94, = 0
M = 5.94, = 5
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
0
1
angle of yaw
Fig. 4.85. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of angle of yaw for hypersonic Mach numbers, [44]. Moment reference point given by the rake-plane center,
see Fig. 4.77.
0.015
n
yawing moment coefficient C
M = 9.90, = 0
M = 9.90, = 10
0.01
M = 9.90, = 10
M = 5.94, = 0
M = 5.94, = 5
0.005
M = 5.94, = 5
0.005
0.01
5
1
0
1
angle of yaw
Fig. 4.86. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the angle of yaw for
hypersonic Mach numbers, [44]. Moment reference point given by the rake-plane
center, see Fig. 4.77.
3.5
x 10
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
107.552.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
sidw force coefficient C
angle of attack
0.02
rolling moment coefficient C
4 Aerodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Capsules and Probes l
110
x 10
2
3
4
5
107.552.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
angle of attack
0.0175
0.015
0.0125
0.01
107.552.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.87. Rolling moment, yawing moment and side force coecients as function
of the angle of attack at nearly constant yawing angle for M = 9.9, [44].
Moment reference point given by the rake-plane center, see Fig. 4.77.
4.11 VIKING (USA)
4.11
111
VIKING (USA)
The VIKING mission to Mars, planned, developed and performed by the

U.S. space agency NASA, was composed of the two spacecrafts VIKING1
and VIKING2. The primary mission objectives were to obtain images of the
Martian surface, to characterize the composition of the atmosphere and to
search for evidence of life.
VIKING1 was launched on Aug. 20, 1975 and arrived at Mars orbit on
June 19, 1976 after a 10 month cruise. Approximately one month later (July
20, 1976) landing on the Martian surface took place after the VIKING1
orbiter had identied an appropriate not too rough landing site by images
made out of its orbit position. VIKING2 was launched on Sept. 9, 1975,
entered Mars orbit on Aug. 7, 1976, and its lander touched down on Sep. 3,
1976.
Fig. 4.88 shows the VIKING Orbiter with the entry module as well as the
lander conguration.
Fig. 4.88. VIKING Orbiter with the entry module (left), and the lander conguration (right)
4.11.1
A 3D presentation of the entry module is given in Fig. 4.89. The VIKING

entry module consists of the aeroshell and the lander plus base cover conguration, [50], which is displayed in Fig. 4.90. The entry module consists
of a spherically blunted cone with a semi-apertural angle of 1 = 70 . The
afterbody consists of two truncated cone segments with the semi-apertural
angles 2 = 40 and 3 = 62.18.
112
Most of the aerodynamic data presented here are taken from [50]. These
data were generated by wind tunnel tests16 using a 0.08 scale model. The
measures of the model and the ight conguration, also shown in Fig. 4.91,
are displayed in Table 4.1.
Fig. 4.89. 3D shape presentation of the VIKING entry module, [50]. View of the
aeroshell (left) and of the base cover (right).
4.11.2
The whole work regarding the establishment of the aerodynamic data base
of the VIKING entry module was done in wind tunnels. Approximate design
methods were not applied and numerical methods had not the maturity at
that time for contributing to the data base as is the case today. Most of the
aerodynamic data presented here were attained at NASA Langleys 8-foot
transonic windtunnel (0.4 M 1.2), [50], which is operated with air.
Since the Martian atmosphere consists essentially of carbon dioxide (CO2 )
some investigations were performed in the NASA Ames Hypervelocity FreeFlight Aerodynamic Facility, which is operated with CO2 . The general outcome was that the drag coecients grow about 3% more in the CO2 medium
compared to air, [51].
16
The tests took place in NASA Langleys 8-foot transonic windtunnel .
4.11 VIKING (USA)
113
Fig. 4.90. VIKINGs entry module (middle) composed of the aeroshell (left) and
the lander plus base cover part (right), [50]
Table 4.1. VIKING entry module: dimensions of the 0.08 scale wind tunnel model
and of the ight conguration, [50]
model [cm]
ight conguration [cm]
d1
28.04
350.05
d2
6.09
76.23
l1
13.15
164.38
l2
6.00
75.00
l3
6.44
80.61
r1
7.01
87.62
r2
0.21
2.62
70
70
40
40
62.18
62.18
114
Fig. 4.91. Shape denition of the VIKING capsule (entry vehicle) with measures,
[50]
Longitudinal Motion
The axial force coecient CX has only a slight dependency on the angle
of attack in the subsonic-transonic Mach number regime (0.4 M 1.2).
For M 2 CX decreases with increasing negative angle of attack. The
lowest CX values are given for subsonic speeds which increase monotonically
with growing Mach numbers, Fig. 4.92. Most of the curves of the normal force
coecients CZ start in the positive value regime for increasing negative angles
of attack, but turn then ( 5 ) strongly to negative values, Fig. 4.93. The
aerodynamic performance L/D shows nearly no Mach number dependency
for 0.4 M 2, Fig. 4.94. The pitching moment diagram, Fig. 4.95,
indicates static stability in the whole Mach number regime presented here.
Generally the behavior of the aerodynamic coecients of the VIKING
entry module is very similar to that of the VIKING-type shapes of Section
4.8.
4.11 VIKING (USA)
115
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.00
M=1.20
M=2.00
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.92. Axial force coecient CX as function of the angle of attack . All data
are taken from [50], except the M = 2 ones, which come from [51].
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.00
M=1.20
M=2.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.93. Normal force coecient CZ as function of angle of attack . All data
116
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.00
M=1.20
M=2.00
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
25
20
15
10
angle of attack
Fig. 4.94. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of angle of the attack . All data
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=1.00
M=1.20
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
25
20
15
10
angle of attack

Moment reference point of windtunnel model xref xcog = 0.428 d1 /2, zref = 0.
All data are taken from [50].
4.11 VIKING (USA)
117
Lateral Motion
The VIKING entry module is an axisymmetric conguration. Because of
that no lateral aerodynamic characteristics exist.
4.11.3
Dynamic stability investigations were conducted in ballistic range facilities by

data reduction of the ight path, and by forced and free oscillation techniques,
[1], in conventional wind tunnels, [51] - [53]. A lot of measured dynamic
stability data are inconsistent with each other and depend obviously either
on the pitch amplitude angle (ballistic range facility) or the reduced frequency
parameter (forced oscillation technique). Regarding the pitch amplitude, tests
have shown that the vehicle becomes dynamically more unstable for low pitch
oscillation angles, and it seems that these low pitch amplitude data agree
acceptably well with the forced oscillation data. In summary the VIKING
entry module behaves, as expected, dynamically unstable in the transonic
Mach number regime and has also a dynamic instability regime around Mach
number 2. From all these dynamic stability data given in [51] to [53], we have
plotted in Fig. 4.96 the forced oscillation results of [53] as function of the Mach
number, whereby the angle of attack was = 0 and the pitch amplitude
angle 1.8 .
dynamic stability parameter C
mq
+C
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Mach number
2.6
2.8
Fig. 4.96. Dynamic pitch damping coecient Cmq + Cm as function of the Mach
number at angle of attack = 0 and a pitch amplitude angle of 1.8 , [53].
118
References
(2010)
3. Bertin, J.J.: The Eect of Protuberances, Cavities, and Angle of Attack on
the Wind Tunnel Pressure and Heat Transfer Distribution for the APOLLO
Command Module. NASA TM X-1243 (1966)
4. Moseley, W.C., Moore, R.H., Hughes, J.E.: Stability Characteristics of the
APOLLO Command Module. NASA TN D-3890 (1967)
5. Lee, D.B., Bertin, J.J., Goodrich, W.D.: Heat Transfer Rate and Pressure
Measurements Obtained During APOLLO Orbital Entries. NASA TN D-6028
(1970)
6. Lee, D.B., Goodrich, W.D.: The Aerothermodynamic Environment of the
APOLLO Command Module During Superorbital Entry. NASA TN D-6792
(1972)
7. N.N. APOLLO Data Base. Industrial communication, Aerospatiale - Deutsche
Aerospace Dasa (1993)
9. Bouslog, S.A., An, M.Y., Wang, K.C., Tam, L.T., Caram, J.M.: Two Layer
Convective Heating Prediction Procedures and Sensitivities for Blunt Body
Re-entry Vehicles. AIAA-Paper 93-2763 (1993)
10. Moseley, W.C., Martino, J.C.: APOLLO Wind Tunnel Testing Programme
Historical Development of General Congurations. NASA TN D-3748
(1966)
11. Ivanov, N.M.: Catalogue of Dierent Shapes for Unwinged Reentry Vehicles.
Final report, ESA Contract 10756/94/F/BM (1994)
12. Paulat, J.C.: Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator: Post Flight Analysis - Aerodynamics. In: Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles
and Systems, Arcachon, France (2001)
13. Rolland, J.Y.: Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator: Post Flight Restitution. In:
Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems,
Arcachon, France (2001)
Heidelberg (2011)
15. Bouilly, J.M., His, S., Macret, J.L.: The ARD Thermal Protection System. In:
Proceedings 1st Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems,
Arcachon, France (February 1999)
16. Muylaert, J.: Felici, F., Kordulla, W.: Aerothermodynamics in Europe: ESA
Achievements and Challenges. ESA-SP- 487 (2002)
References
119
17. Pallegoix, J.F., Collinet, J.: Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator: Post Flight
Analysis, Flight Rebuilding with CFD Control. In: Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp.
on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon, France (2001)
18. Tran, P.: ARD Aerothermal Environment. In: Proceedings 1st Int. Symp. on
Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon, France (1999)
19. Paulat, J.C., Baillion, M.: Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator Aerodynamics.
In: Proceedings 1st Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Reentry Vehicles and Systems,
20. Paulat, J.C.: Synthesis of Critical Points. ESA Manned Space Transportation
Programme, Final Report, HT-SF-WP1130-087-AS, Aerospatiale (1997)
21. Baillion, M., Pallegoix, J.F.: HUYGENS Probe Aerothermodynamics. AIAAPaper 97-2476 (1997)
22. Baillion, M.: Aerothermodynamic Requirements and Design of the HUYGENS
Probe. Capsule Aerothermodynamics, AGARD-R-808 (1997)
23. Mazoue, F., Graciona, J., Tournebize, L., Marraa, L.: Updated Analysis of
the Radiative Heat Flux During the Entry of the Huygens Probe in the Titan
Atmosphere. ESA SP-563 (2005)
24. (2013), http://www.esa.int/esasearch?q=Huygens+atmosphere
25. Burnell, S.I., Liever, P., Smith, A.J., Parnaby, G.: Prediction of the BEAGLE2
Static Aerodynamic Coecients. In: Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon, France (2001)
26. Olynick, D.R., Chen, Y.K., Tauber, M.E.: Wake Flow Calculations with Ablation for the Stardust Sample Return Capsule. AIAA-Paper 97-2477 (1997)
27. Smith, A.J., Parnaby, G., Matthews, A.J., Jones, T.V.: Aerothermodynamic
Environment of the BEAGLE2 Entry Capsule. ESA-SP-487 (2002)
28. Akimoto, T., Ito, T., Yamamoto, Y., Bando, T., Inoue, Y.: Orbital Re-entry
Experiment (OREX) - First Step of Space Return Flight Demonstations in
Japan. IAF Paper 94-V.2.525, Jerusalem Israel (1994)
29. N.N. Activities in the Past. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency,
http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/fstr/0c01.html
30. Yamamoto, Y., Yoshioka, M.: CFD and FEM Coupling Analysis of OREX
Aerothermodynamic Flight Data. AIAA-Paper 95-2087 (1995)
31. Murakami, K., Fujiwara, T.: A Hypersonic Floweld Around a Re-entry Body
Including Detailed Base Flow. ESA-SP-367 (1995)
32. Gupta, R.N., Moss, J.N., Price, J.M.: Assessment of Thermochemical Nonequilibrium and Slip Eects for Orbital Re-entry Experiment (OREX). AIAA-Paper
96-1859 (1996)
33. Mehta, R.C.: Aerodynamic Drag Coecient for Various Reentry Congurations
at High Speed. AIAA-Paper No. 2006-3179 (2006)
34. Weiland, C.: Crew Transport Vehicle Phase A, Aerodynamics and
Aerothermodynamics. CTV-Programme, HV-TN-3100-X05-DASA, Dasa,
Mnchen/Ottobrunn, Germany (1995)
35. Hagmeijer, R., Weiland, C.: Crew Transport Vehicle Phase A, External Shape
Denition and Aerodynamic Data Set. CTVProgramme, HV-TN-2100-011DASA, Dasa, M
unchen/Ottobrunn, Germany (1995)
120
36. Kok, J.C., Hagmeijer, R., Oskam, B.: Aerodynamic CFD Data for Two VikingType Capsule Congurations at Subsonic, Transonic, and Low Supersonic Mach
Numbers. CRV/CTV Phase A Study, NLR Contract Report CR 95273 L, NLR
Amsterdam, the Netherlands (1995)
37. Blanchet, D., Kilian, J.M., Rives, J.: Crew Transport Vehicle-Phase B, Aerodynamic Data Base. CTV-Programme, HV-TN- 8-10062-AS, Aerospatiale
(1997)
38. Menne, S.: Computation of Non-Winged Vehicle Aerodynamics in the Low
Supersonic Range. ESA-SP-367 (1995)
39. Weiland, C., Ptzner, M.: 3-D and 2-D Solutions of the Quasi-Conservative
Euler Equations. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 264. Springer (1986)
40. Schr
oder, W., Hartmann, G.: Implicit Solutions of Three-Dimensional Viscous
Hypersonic Flows. Computer and Fluids 21(1) (1992)
41. Marzano, A., Solazzo, M., Sansone, A., Capuano, A., Borriello, G.: Aerothermodynamic Development of the CARINA Re-entry Vehicel: CFD Analysis and
Experimental Tests. ESA-SP-318 (1991)
42. Solazzo, M., Sansone, A., Gasbarri, P.: Aerodynamic Characterization of the
CARINA Re-entry Module in the Low Supersonic Regimes. ESA-SP-367 (1994)
43. Wells, W.L.: Measured and Predicted Aerodynamic Coecients and Shock
Shapes for Aeroassist Flight Experiment Congurations. NASA TP- 2956
(1990)
44. Micol, J.R., Wells, W.L.: Hypersonic Lateral and Directional Stability Characteristics of Aeroassist Flight Experiment in Air and CF4. NASA TM-4435
(1993)
45. Dieudonne, W., Spel, M.: Entry Probe Stability Analysis for the Mars
Pathnder and the Mars Premier Orbiter. ESA-SP-544 (2004)
46. Charbonnier, J.M., Fraysse, H., Verant, J.L., Traineau, J.C., Pot, T., Masson,
A.: Aerothermodynamics of the Mars Premier Orbiter in Aerocapture Conguration. In: Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and
Systems, Arcachon, France (2001)
47. Verant, J.L., Pelissier, C., Charbonnier, J.M., Erre, A., Paris, S.: Review of
the MSR Orbiter Hypersonic Experimental Campaigns. In: Proceedings 3rd
Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon, France
(2003)
48. Chanetz, B., Pot, T., Le Sant, Y., Leplat, M.: Study of the Mars Sample Return
Orbiter in the Hypersonic Wind Tunnel R5Ch. In: Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp.
on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon, France (2001)
49. Yates, L.A., Venkatapathy, E.: Trim Angle Measurement in Free-Flight Facilities. AIAA-Paper 91-1632 (1991)
50. McGhee, R.J., Siemers, P.M., Pelc, R.E.: Transonic Aerodynamic Charakteristics of the Viking Entry and Lander Conguration. NASA TM X-2354
(1971)
51. Sammonds, R.I., Kruse, R.L.: Viking Entry Vehicle Aerodynamics at M = 2 in
Air and Some Preliminary Test Data for Flight in CO2 at M = 11. NASA TN
D-7974 (1975)
References
121
52. Whitlock, C.H., Siemers, P.M.: Parameters Inuencing Dynamic Stability

Characteristics of Viking-Type Entry Congurations at Mach 1.76. J. of Spacecraft 9(7) (1972)
53. Uselton, B.L., Schadow, T.O., Manseld, A.C.: Damping-in-Pitch Derivatives
of 120- and 140-Degrees Blunted Cones at Mach Numbers from 0.6 Trough 3.
AEDC-TR-70-49 (1970)
54. Baillion, M., Tran, P., Caillaud, J.: Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics and
Flight Qualities. ARCV Programme, ACRVA- TN 1.2.3.-AS, Aerospatiale
(1993)
55. Rochelle, W.C., Ting, P.C., Mueller, S.R., Colovin, J.E., Bouslog, S.A., Curry,
D.M., Scott, C.D.: Aerobrake Heating Rate Sensitivity Study for the Aeroassist
Flight Experiments. AIAA-Paper, 89 - 1733 (1989)
Aerothermodynamic Data of Non-Winged

Re-entry Vehicles (RV-NW)
- Cones and Bicones -
During the search for simple, appropriate shapes of RV-NW space vehicles
the designers discovered the cone, respectively the bicone shapes as possible
candidates. In particular the bicone shapes oer the capability to design a
mission adapted conguration with specic properties. This is due to their
large geometrical possibilities.
5.1
Introduction
Since a long time various blunted cones and bicones were considered for specic manned or unmanned space missions, and some preliminary feasibility
studies have been made. Very often the cones and bicones are blunted by
spherical pigs. The advantage of cone-based congurations consists in the
higher lift-to-drag ratio compared to classical capsules. The family of bicones
can be divided into three classes, see, e.g., [1]:
blu (fat)-bicones,
slender-bicones,
bent-bicones,
Blu-bicones have in the hypersonic ight regime a maximum lift-to-drag
ratio of L/Dmax 0.6, slender-bicones of L/Dmax 1.1 and bent-bicones of
L/Dmax 1.5.
In contrast to classical axisymmetric RV-NWs (capsules and probes, see
Chapter 4) these shapes generate lift with a positive angle of attack. In general, blunted cones and bicones are appropriate (in the frame of the nonwinged vehicle class) for missions where a large cross-range capability, good
maneuverability, low landing distortion and low deceleration loads are required, and further when high entry velocities and thin atmospheres are given
(for example planetary missions towards Mars or moons of planets).
Despite the obvious advantages of cone-type space vehicles over capsules
no operable vehicle of such type was ever built or own.
In Europe several activities were conducted in the frame of ESAs Crew
Transport Vehicle (CTV) studies, [2, 3]. Investigations are also made in the
U.S., [4, 5]. In Russia are, besides others, some preliminary studies on biconic
shapes, [6].
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_5,
123
124
5 Aerothermodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Cones and Bicones -
Fig. 5.1 gives some impressions of biconic shapes studied at Daimler Benz
Aerospace (Dasa) in the 1990s.
Fig. 5.1. Bicones: Synthetic image taken from a CRV/CTV study performed by
Dasa in 1995, initiated by ESA (left), 3D non-equilibrium Euler solution around
the bent-bicone conguration INKA, [7], a Dasa study, 1993 (right), free-stream
conditions: M = 25, = 4 , H = 80 km.
5.2
BLUFF-BICONE (Germany)
5.2.1
A 3D presentation of Dasas blu-bicone shape is shown in Fig. 5.2, whereas

the drawing in Fig. 5.3 gives the measures which dene this conguration.
Blu-bicone shapes have the advantage that the constraints of internal layout (payload accommodation) and of the launch system (usually faring restrictions of rockets) can better be met than with the other bicone shapes.
5.2.2
The aerodynamic data presented below were generated exclusively by the

application of approximate design methods like local inclination methods for
supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers and panel methods for subsonic
Mach numbers, [8].
Longitudinal Motion
The lift coecient CL for the subsonic-transonic and transonic-supersonic
ight regimes is plotted in Figs. 5.5 and 5.6. Interesting is the fact, that
5.2 BLUFF-BICONE (Germany)
125
Fig. 5.2. 3D shape presentation of Dasas BLUFF-BICONE conguration, [3]
Fig. 5.3. Shape denition of Dasas BLUFF-BICONE conguration, [3]
the usually found linear behavior of CL () is present only in the transonic

regime, whereas for subsonic and super-hypersonic Mach numbers the CL
curves deviate considerably from linearity.
The drag coecient CD acts like expected starting with low values in the
subsonic regime, then rising to extreme values in the transonic regime and
nally again declining to lower values in the supersonic-hypersonic regime,
Figs. 5.7, 5.8.
The cross-range capability of a space vehicle is directly related to the
lift-to-drag ratio L/D in all speed regimes. This quantity amounts for the
blu-bicone to approximately 0.8 for 25 in the subsonic regime,
126
Fig. 5.4. Denition of two moment reference positions used for the presentation
of the pitching moment coecients in Figs. 5.11 - 5.13. 1 xref = 0.25 Lref , zref =
0.0 Lref and 2 xref = 0.59 Lref , zref = 0.0175 Lref .
Fig. 5.9, and decreases in the supersonic-hypersonic regime to L/D 0.65

for 20 , Fig. 5.10.
Axisymmetric bodies can more eciently be trimmed, if the center-ofgravity is o the axis of symmetry, [1]. For the nominal moment reference
point applied here (xref = 0.25 Lref , zref = 0.0 Lref ), Fig. 5.4, the vehicle
is stable in the whole Mach number regime, but cannot be trimmed, because
for all Mach numbers the pitching moment is Cm = 0 at > 0, Figs. 5.11
and 5.12.
This problem can be overcome either by a suitable selection of the centerof-gravity position (which may be restricted by the internal lay-out of the
vehicle) or by employing aerodynamic devices like aps and brakes (which of
course complicates the vehicle design and the control system). As an example
for the former approach we have changed the center-of-gravity position to
xref = 0.59 Lref , zref = 0.0175 Lref (Fig. 5.4) with the result that for
the Mach numbers M = 1.35 and 1.5 the vehicle is still slightly statically
stable and can be trimmed at 12 , Fig. 5.13. For higher Mach numbers
the pitching moment derivative tends to become zero and no trim is possible.
For two trajectory points (M = 1.5, = 20 and = 25 ) also numerical
solutions were generated [9], with the Euler method reported in [10, 11]. Very
good agreement was obtained for the drag and the pitching moment, Figs. 5.8
and 5.12, whereas the lift and therefore also the aerodynamic performance
L/D deviate somewhat from each other, Figs. 5.6, 5.10, 5.13. Nevertheless
the Euler results prove to some extent the reliability of the used engineering
methods.
127
All coecients approach Mach number independency for M 5.
0.8
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.95
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.5. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic Mach numbers, [8]
Lateral Motion
The vehicle is axisymmetric.
5.2.3
Investigations of dynamic stability were not done.
128
0.8
M=1.35
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=5.00
M=8.00
M=10.00
M=1.5 CFD
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.6. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [8]
1.6
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.95
1.4
drag coefficient C
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.7. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic Mach numbers, [8].
129
1.6
1.4
drag coefficient C
1.2
1
0.8
M=1.35
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=5.00
M=8.00
M=10.00
M=1.5 CFD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.8. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [8].
1
0.9
0.8
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.95
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
130
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
M=1.35
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=5.00
M=8.00
M=10.00
M=1.5 CFD
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.10. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [8].
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.95
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.11. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of angle of attack for

subsonic-transonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.25 Lref ,
zref = 0.0 Lref , [8].
131
M=1.35
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=5.00
M=8.00
M=10.00
M=1.50 CFD
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35

for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.25 Lref ,
zref = 0.0 Lref , [8].
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
M=1.35
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=5.00
M=8.00
M=10.00
M=1.50 CFD
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
transonic-supersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.590 Lref ,
zref = 0.0175 Lref , [8].
132
5.3
SLENDER-BICONE (Russia)
An increase of the aerodynamic performance L/D can also be attained with a

slender-bicone, Fig. 5.14, where the reduction of the diameter D1 , compared
to the blu-bicone, leads to decreased axial and drag forces and a slight
increase of the normal force.
5.3.1
The conguration, which we consider here, was designed at Tsniimash, a

Russian Research Institute for space applications located at Kaliningrad near
Moscow. The geometric data of the shape are given in Fig. 5.15, [6].
Fig. 5.14. 3D shape presentation of the SLENDER-BICONE capsule
5.3.2
The aerodynamic data discussed below for the Mach numbers 0.60 M 4
were obtained by wind tunnel investigations, whereas approximate design
methods were applied for the generation of the M = 5.96 data, [6].
Longitudinal Motion
The characteristics of the lift coecient CL are comparable to the ones
of the blu-bicone, Figs. 5.5 and 5.6. However the slope CL / for higher
angles of attack is somewhat larger in the transonic regime than in the other
ight regimes, Fig. 5.16.
Regarding the drag we expect that it is highest in the transonic regime
with a monotonic decrease towards the subsonic as well as supersonic regime.
Fig. 5.17 indeed shows this behavior.
The lift-to-drag diagram, Fig. 5.18, exhibits some irregularities, in particular the L/D curve for the Mach number M = 5.96 appears to be somewhat
5.3 SLENDER-BICONE (Russia)
133
Fig. 5.15. Shape denition of the SLENDER-BICONE capsule, [6]
too high. A possible explanation could be that, as already mentioned above,

the aerodynamic values for this Mach number were generated by an approximate design method, whereas the other values were compiled by tests in wind
tunnels.
Now we pay our attention to the pitching moment coecient. The general
moment reference point was xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.0667 Lref . For
this reference point the slender-bicone vehicle behaves unstable for the Mach
numbers M = 0.6, 0.95, 1.18. It alters its behavior to a slightly static
stability for the Mach numbers M = 2.53, 4, 5.96. In addition for M = 2.53
a trim point is available for an angle of attack value of trim 26 , Fig. 5.19.
The question arises wether there exists a center-of-gravity location where,
for all Mach numbers, statically stable and trimmed ight can be secured. In
Fig. 5.20 the pitching moment coecient for such a point (xref = 0.42 Lref ,
zref = 0.1467 Lref ) is plotted, but it seems rather doubtful if in practice
the lay-out designer can realize such a center-of-gravity location.
In the following we demonstrate in a further example what one has to do
in order to trim the vehicle at a specic trajectory point. Let the trajectory
point be given by M = 5.96 and = 20 . We then nd from Fig. 5.18 a
lift-to-drag ratio of L/D = 1.0707. Further we use the relations formulated
in Section 4.1.
With eq. (4.1) the pitching moment coecient is transformed from the
nominal reference point (P1: xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.0667 Lref )
to the reference point positioned in the tip of the vehicle (xj = 0 Lref ,
zj = 0 Lref ). With eq. (4.2) the center-of-pressure position along the xcoordinate (zcp = 0) is calculated to xcp = 0.5640. Then with eq. (4.3) the
lift coefficient C
0.8
0.6
M=0.60
M=0.95
M=1.18
M=2.53
M=4.00
M=5.96
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.16. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack , [6]
drag coefficient C
134
0.8
0.6
M=0.60
M=0.95
M=1.18
M=2.53
M=4.00
M=5.96
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.17. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack , [6]
135
0.8
0.6
M=0.60
M=0.95
M=1.18
M=2.53
M=4.00
M=5.96
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
line of the center-of-gravity positions is determined, where the vehicle ies

trimmed, Fig. 5.21.
We select now two additional trim points on this line, besides the trim
point on the x-axis (P3: xref = 0.564 Lref , zref = 0.0 Lref ), one with a
negative z-oset, (P2: xref = 0.554 Lref , zref = 0.0236 Lref ) and one
with a positive z-oset, (P4: xref = 0.574 Lref , zref = + 0.0234 Lref ). This
example demonstrates that there exists some margin for the internal vehicle
lay-out and the payload accommodation.
Fig. 5.22 shows the pitching moment coecient for these three trim points
and the nominal reference point.
Lateral Motion
5.3.3
Results of investigations of dynamic stability are not available.
136
0.2
0.15
0.1
M=0.60
M=0.95
M=1.18
M=2.53
M=4.00
M=5.96
0.05
0.05
0.1
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35

Moment reference point xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.0667 Lref , [6].
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
M=0.60
M=0.95
M=1.18
M=2.53
M=4.00
M=5.96
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.20. Pitching moment coecient for stable and trimmed ight. Moment
reference point xref = 0.42 Lref , zref = 0.1467 Lref , [6].
137
Fig. 5.21. Line of center-of-gravity locations for vehicle trim, Cm = 0. M = 5.96,

trim = 20 , xcp = 0.5640, L/Dtrim = 1.0707 (see Figs. 5.18, 5.22).
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
M=5.96, P1
M=5.96, P2
M=5.96, P3
M=5.96, P4
0.02
0.03
0.04
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
Fig. 5.22. Comparison of pitching moment coecient Cm as function

of attack for various moment reference points. Mach number M
=
0.570 Lref ,
zref
=
0.0667
P1: xref
=
0.554 Lref ,
zref
=
0.0236
P2: xref
=
0.564 Lref ,
zref
=
0.0000
P3: xref
P4: xref = 0.574 Lref , zref = + 0.0234 Lref .
of
=
angle
5.96.
Lref ,
Lref ,
Lref ,
138
5.4
BENT-BICONE (USA)
In the 1980s and 1990s there were some activities in the USA for designing
non-winged re-entry vehicles (RV-NW) with relatively high lift-to-drag ratio
L/D, [4, 5, 7]. One reason for that was to nd a space vehicle with a simple
shape, which is able to perform reliably the transfer between orbits of dierent
altitudes using for this operation a more or less deep immersion into Earths
atmosphere. Such vehicles are called Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicles
(AOTV). Another reason was the investigation of space vehicle shapes for
the selection of a suitable Crew Transport Vehicle (CTV) in the frame of an
ESA study, [7]. The background of this study was an European solution for
servicing the International Space Station (ISS).
One group of these congurations was given by bent-bicone shapes, where
as an example we consider now the vehicle described in [5].
5.4.1
Figs. 5.23 and 5.24 show the bent-bicone shape, for which aerodynamic data
for the two supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers M = 5.9 and 10.1 exist,
[5]. Note: The dimensions of this conguration are those of a wind tunnel
model.
Fig. 5.23. 3D shape presentation of the BENT-BICONE capsule, [5]
5.4.2
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic data were established by wind tunnel tests. The lift
coecient CL is shown in Fig. 5.25. It behaves like expected. The drag coefcient CD , plotted in Fig. 5.26, holds lower values for small angles of attack
5.4 BENT-BICONE (USA)
139
Fig. 5.24. Shape denition of the BENT-BICONE capsule, [5]
( 10 ) compared to the other bicone shapes, discussed before in this

chapter. The aerodynamic performance L/D achieves values in the hypersonic regime of approximately 1.4, Fig. 5.27. Bent-bicones generate asymmetric ow elds even at zero incidence, which supports the trim capacity of
the shape, as can be seen in Fig. 5.28. Obviously, in the hypersonic regime
statically stable and trimmed ight is possible for realistic center-of-gravity
locations and angles of attack (22 trim 24 ).
Lateral Motion
No data are available regarding the lateral motion.
5.4.3
1
0.9
lift coefficient C
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
M=5.90
M=10.10
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35

1
0.9
0.8
drag coefficient C
140
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
M=5.90
M=10.10
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
5.4 BENT-BICONE (USA)
141
1.5
0.5
M=5.90
M=10.10
0
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35
0.05
M=5.90
M=10.10
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
35

Moment reference point xref = 0.554 Lref , zref = 0.0 Lref , [5].
142
5.5
COLIBRI (Germany)
The utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) as an experimental

facility requires a frequent sample return opportunity, which can be provided,
for example, by a small, unmanned and controllable re-entry capsule. Therefore the institute of space systems IRS (Institut f
ur Raumfahrtsysteme) of
the University of Stuttgart, Germany, proposed a design of a space vehicle
on the basis of a simple sphere-cone conguration with a attened lower surface, where a body ap with two separate parts was mounted. The capsule
was named COLIBRI, Figs. 5.29 and 5.30, [12, 13]. In the frame of a small
technology program this capsule was also foreseen to serve as a testbed for
the provision of aerothermodynamic ight data with the goal to verify
the aerothermodynamic data base, established by wind tunnel tests and
numerical simulation methods (CFD),
the investigation and test of advanced thermal protection materials,
the proof of the suitability of a specic re-entry guidance, navigation and
control system.
The total mass of the capsule depends on the mission to be performed
(number of experiments and/or ight measurement systems, etc.), whereby
it was envisaged not to exceed the 300 kg level. Further, it was proposed
to perform a demonstrator ight in the early 2000s as a piggy-back payload
on the Russian FOTON capsule launched by a Russian SOYUZ rocket. But
unfortunately due to budget restrictions this never happened.
5.5.1
Three-dimensional versions of the COLIBRI shape are plotted in Fig. 5.29,

where the body ap is not deected ( = 0 ). The geometrical relations are
shown in Fig. 5.30, [12, 13]. In the frame of the congurational design work
other congurations were also tested where in particular the attened part
of the lower surface was varied, [12]. The reason for this was that the trim
angle of attack trim of the nominal shape was relatively small (trim > 10 ),
leading to low L/D values.
5.5 COLIBRI (Germany)
Fig. 5.29. 3D shape presentation of the COLIBRI vehicle
Fig. 5.30. Shape denition of the COLIBRI vehicle, [12, 13]
143
144
5.5.2
Longitudinal Motion
The performance data presented were generated by measurements in the
wind tunnels TMK and H2K of the German Aerospace Center DLR at
Cologne. Euler computations around the COLIBRI conguration without
the body ap device were also conducted for some trajectory points and
can be found in [13]. The data of the following four gures (Figs. 5.33 5.35) were obtained for a COLIBRI shape with a body ap deection of
= 10 , see Fig. 5.31. A positive (downward) body ap deection increases
the longitudinal static stability. For the drag coecient CD values for the
Mach numbers M = 0.4, 0.6, 1.05, 1.4, 2, 3, 4, 8.7 are available, Fig. 5.33.
Unfortunately for the lift coecient CL , and therefore also for the aerodynamic performance L/D, we nd in [12] only values for M = 1.4, 2, 3, 4,
Figs. 5.32 - 5.34. The original reference point for the pitching moment was
xref /l1 = 0.58, zref /l1 = 0.028 for Mach number values M = 1.4, 2, 3, 4.
Due to problems with the directional stability the reference point was moved
forward to xref /l1 = 0.51. For that value the pitching moment coecient
for M = 8.7 is also plotted in Fig. 5.35. The trim angle trim lies between
2 trim 5 for the M = 2, 3, 4 curves but no positive trim angle is
available for M = 1.4. The trim angle increases with decreasing body ap
deection, but decreases when the reference point is moved forward. All together it seems dicult with this conguration to attain L/D values of 0.6
or larger, because the trim angle tends to be at the maximum trim 10 .
Fig. 5.31. Comparison of 3D shapes of COLIBRI vehicle with dierent body ap

deections: = 0 (left), = 10 (right)
lift coefficient C
0.5
145
M=1.4
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 5.32. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack , [12]. Body ap
deection = 10 .
0.9
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=1.05
M=1.4
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=6.0
M=8.7
drag coefficient CD
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 5.33. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack , [12]. Body
ap deection = 10 .
146
5 Aerothermodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Cones and Bicones 1

M=1.4
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 5.34. Lift to drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack , [12]. Body
ap deection = 10 .
0.2
M=1.4
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=8.7
0.1
pitch moment C
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 5.35. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack , [12].
Body ap deection = 10 . Moment reference point for M = 1.4, 2, 3, 4 curves
xref /l1 = 0.58, zref /l1 = 0.028, and for the M = 8.7 curve xref /l1 = 0.51,
zref /l1 = 0.028.
147
Lateral Motion
As mentioned before the nominal moment reference point xref /l1 = 0.58,
zref /l1 = 0.028 generates a directional instability in the subsonic ight
domain. This was the reason for moving the reference point forward to the
x - position xref /l1 = 0.51, which unfortunately leads on the other hand to
lower trim angles with the consequence of a lower aerodynamic performance
L/D, as Fig. 5.34 exhibits. For the adjusted reference point the directional
stability is indierent for M = 0.6, whereas for M = 1.4 and 4 stability
(Cn / > 0) is ensured, Fig. 5.36. The roll moment coecient was only
measured for M = 4. Fig. 5.37 demonstrates that for this Mach number
roll stability is given (Cl / < 0).
0.1
yaw moment coefficient Cn
0.08
M=0.6
M=1.4
M=4.0
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
6
2
4
yaw angle
10
Fig. 5.36. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the angle of yaw , [12].
Moment reference point xref /l1 = 0.51, zref /l1 = 0.028. Body ap deection
= 0 .
5.5.3
148
5 Aerothermodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Cones and Bicones 0.01

M=4.0
roll moment coefficient C
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
6
2
4
yaw angle
10
Fig. 5.37. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the angle of yaw , [12].
Moment reference point xref /l1 = 0.51, zref /l1 = 0.028. Body ap deection
= 0 .
5.6 IRDT (Inatable Re-entry Demonstrator) (Russia-Germany)
5.6
149
IRDT (Inatable Re-entry Demonstrator)

(Russia-Germany)
The Inatable Re-entry and Descent Technology (IRDT) concept was developed by the Russian space research organization NPO Lavoshkin. The
classical non-winged re-entry vehicles (RV-NW) need for the re-entry process
a heat shield and for the landing procedure a parachute or parafoil system. Instead, the IRDT system deploys before re-entry the rst stage of an inatable
braking unit (IBU) which is able to withstand the extreme ow conditions
in hypersonic ight. This envelope increases the vehicle diameter from 0.80
m to 2.30 m, Figs. 5.38 and 5.40. Further, for the landing procedure, a second stage of the inatable braking unit is deployed. This takes place, when
the ight Mach number approaches approximately M 0.8. Thereby the
vehicles diameter is increased to 3.80 m. The main advantage of the IRDT
system consists in the considerably lower launch volume and mass compared
to the extensive and heavy thermal protection and landing systems of classical capsules.
In Fig. 5.38 the mission sequence from de-orbiting to landing is illustrated,
showing the small rigid capsule as orbital conguration, the vehicle, when the
rst stage of IBU is deployed at an altitude of H = 100 km, and the vehicle
in landing conguration having the second stage of IBU unfolded, [14, 15].
A qualication ight was carried out on Feb. 9, 2000. For a safe landing
(touch down on the ground) the deployed second stage of the IBU system
should decelerate the velocity of the vehicle to v = 13 15 m/s. Measured
were velocities of approximately 60 m/s, which substantiate the suspicion,
that the second stage of the IBU was not deployed correctly. Therefore the
ight has to be considered as not completely successful, [14, 15]. There were
several plans for further demonstration ights, but up to the year 2012 none
of these were realized.
5.6.1
The orbital conguration contains the stowed IBU system and the equipment
container, where the payload is accommodated. This orbital conguration is
the rigid part of the IRDT system consisting of a blunt heat shield and a
cone with a semi-apertural angle of 45 , Fig. 5.39.
The technical dimensions of the rigid part (orbital conguration) and of
the conguration with deployed rst stage of the inatable braking unit are
exhibited in Fig. 5.40.
5.6.2
The aerodynamic coecients presented below were made basically available by NPO Lavoshkin, [17]. In the frame of a cooperation the Deutsche
150
Fig. 5.38. IRDT: Schematic of the de-orbiting, the re-entry and the landing
process, [14, 15]
Fig. 5.39. IRDT: Orbital conguration with the equipment container and the
stowed IBU envelope, [14]
151
Fig. 5.40. Rigid part of the IRDT capsule (left), rigid part and deployed rst
stage of the inatable braking unit (right); shape congurations with dimensions,
[16]
Aerospace (Dasa, later EADS) in Germany had contributed to the completion of this aerodynamic data base through a series of numerical solutions
(CFD) using the Euler equations, [18]. Fig. 5.41 shows for the Mach number M = 5 some results of the numerical simulations around the IRDT
shape: rigid part and deployed rst stage of the IBU. High Mach number
ows (M = 9) were investigated in a wind tunnel for rstly the rigid part
only and secondly the rigid part and the deployed rst stage of the IBU. In
Figs. 5.42 and 5.43 Schlieren photographs are presented illustrating the bow
shock formation and its interaction with embedded shocks.
It is interesting to see that the embedded shock, generated behind the
heat shield due to the cone, strengthens the bow shock and bends it against
the oncoming ow. This behavior can be identied in both the numerical
152
solution on the windward side (Fig. 5.41, left) and the wind tunnel Schlieren
photograph (Fig. 5.42). The aerodynamic data set presented below is valid
for the rigid part and the deployed rst stage of the IBU, Fig. 5.40 (right).
Fig. 5.41. IRDT: Numerical ow eld simulation (Euler solution). Shown are the
pressure coecient distributions on the surface of the vehicle (right), in the plane of
symmetry (middle), and in a zoomed front part, where also streamlines are plotted
(left), [17]. M = 5, = 10 .
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic data set delivered by Lavoshkin in 1999 to Dasa had
contained the two Mach numbers M = 0 and 100. The intention with these
two Mach numbers was as follows:
Mach number M = 0 should indicate that for the subsonic Mach numbers
up to M 0.35 truly incompressible ow can be expected and that the
aerodynamic coecients are in general constant between M = 0 and 0.35,
Mach number M = 100 should indicate that the Mach number independence principle for hypersonic ows is valid, [1], which means that at least
beyond M 10 no signicant changes of the aerodynamic coecients
appear.
Firstly we mention, that due to the strong bluntness of the IRDT shape
a positive lift is attained only for negative angles of attack, as it is typical
for capsules, see Section 4.1. We have to accept this as true, despite the fact
that the aft body of the IRDT shape consists of a truncated cone with a
positive semi-apertural angle in contrast to the classical capsules, where the
153
Fig. 5.42. Rigid part of the IRDT vehicle only. Test in a wind tunnel at Mach
number M = 9, = 0 (left), shape conguration (right), [16, 17].
Fig. 5.43. Rigid part of the IRDT vehicle and deployed rst stage of the inatable
braking unit (IBU). Test in a wind tunnel at Mach number M = 9, = 0 (left),
shape conguration (right), [16, 17].
154
semi-apertural angle is negative, see for example the APOLLO or the SOYUZ
shapes, Chapter 4.
A view at the diagram of the lift coecient, Fig. 5.44, reveals that a large
spread of CL exists for the various Mach numbers. The lift coecient behaves
in general linear for angles of attack up to 30. The values of the
numerical simulation conrm on the whole the data of the aerodynamic data
base, except for the trajectory point M = 5, = 30. There, it seems,
that the convergence of the numerical solution was not completely achieved.
The drag is lowest in the low subsonic regime (M = 0) and highest for
M = 2, Fig. 5.45. For hypersonic Mach numbers and the Mach number
M = 1 we nd very similar values of the drag coecient, which is at least
surprising. The expectation was that the drag is to be highest in the vicinity
of M 1, therefore we do not have an explanation for that.
The aerodynamic performance L/D is plotted in Fig. 5.46. The curve
progressions (for angles of attack up to 60 ) do not announce any
maximum as it is the case for cone or bicone shapes as well as the winged
shapes (see Chapter 6). Instead, this behavior supports the assessment that
the IRDT shape acts more as a classical capsule than as a blunted cone. Note,
that the lift and drag coecients as well as the lift-to-drag ratio become Mach
number independent above M 5.
For all the Mach numbers investigated longitudinal static stability (pitch
stability) is preserved, Fig. 5.471 . Axisymmetric bodies, where the moment
reference point lies on the line of symmetry (in this case here xref =
0.325D, zref = 0.), are dicult to trim, see Section 4.1. The pitching moment
for = 0 must be zero. As one can see, this condition is slightly violated by
the numerical simulation results for M = 7.5. With a z-oset of the centerof-gravity the trim behavior of the vehicle is very much improved. Fig. 5.48
exhibits for the ve Mach numbers M = 0, 1, 2, 5, 100 of the gure above
the curve progression of the pitching moment, when the center-of-gravity is
positioned slightly underneath of the symmetry line (zref = 0.04D). We
then discern that the vehicle is trimmed in the whole Mach number range at
angles of attack between 23 trim 9 .
Lateral Motion
1
Note, that the data base delivered by NPO Lavoshkin to Dasa in the year 2000
had for the pitching moment Cm identical values for M = 0 and 1 and also
for M = 5 and 100. The identical data for M = 5 and 100 can be explained
by the Mach number independence rule for hypersonic ows. But the Cm values
for M = 0 and 1 should be dierent. Unfortunately we have no explanation for
this fact.
0.8
M=0.0
M=1.0
M=2.0
M=5.0
M=100.0
M=3.5 num
M=5.0 num
M=7.5 num
M=10.0 num
0.7
lift coefficient C
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
drag coefficient C
1.5
0.5
0
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
155
156
1
M=0.0
M=1.0
M=2.0
M=5.0
M=100.0
M=3.5 num
M=5.0 num
M=7.5 num
M=10.0 num
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
0.1
0.05
M=0.0
M=1.0
M=2.0
M=2.5
M=5.0
M=100
M=3.5 num
M=5.0 num
M=7.5 num
M=10.0 num
0.05
0.1
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10

[17]. Moment reference point, measured from nose tip, xref = 0.325D, zref = 0.
157
M=0.0
M=1.0
M=2.0
M=5.0
M=100
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.48. Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of angle of attack . Moment reference point xref = 0.325D, zref = 0.040D.
5.6.3
NPO Lavoshkin has delivered2 also some data regarding the dynamic pitch
stability (pitch damping coecient) Cm + Cmq , Fig. 5.49. It attracts attention that the values are often constant over larger angle of attack intervals.
Further the data for M = 0 and 1 coincide completely! Since it is not known
what the basis of these values is, we will not further discuss them.
In the frame of the cooperation with the Deutsche Aerospace (Dasa).
pitch damping coefficient Cm + Cmq
158
0.3
0.2
0.1
M=0.0
M=0.8
M=1.2
M=1.4
M=2.0
M=100
0
0.1
0.2
60
50
40
30
20
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.49. Pitch damping coecient Cm + Cmq as function of the angle of attack
, [17]. Moment reference point, measured from nose tip, xref = 0.325D, zref = 0.
5.7 EXPERT (Europe)
5.7
159
EXPERT (Europe)
During the European space programs HERMES, ocially started in 1987,

and later the MSTP program (Manned Space Transportation Program),
started in 1994, the aerothermodynamic discipline did evolve to such an extent that with new hypersonic and/or high enthalpy wind tunnels, investigations in parameter ranges (Mach number, total temperature or enthalpy,
Reynolds number, etc.) became possible, to which the researchers had no
access in the earlier days. The same was true for the evolution of the numerical simulation methods. In the frame of the above mentioned programs the
computational uid dynamic (CFD) tools got the capability to handle threedimensional ow elds past complex congurations, gas ows in thermodynamic equilibrium and non-equilibrium as well, complicated laminar and turbulent viscous ow structures and radiation cooled surfaces, just to mention
some of the most challenging items. Since the results of all those investigation
tools had to be validated, which could be conducted at best by a free ight
experiment, the European Space Agency (ESA) with its technical branch ESTEC proposed to design and develop a ying testbed. This testbed got the
name EXPERT (European eXPErimental Re-entry Testbed), [19, 20].
In the beginning of the EXPERT study two congurations were designed
and their aerodynamic performance investigated. The rst shape was the
body of revolution REV (blunted cone with a are), and the second one the
blunted pyramid based model KHEOPS with genuine aps, Fig. 5.50, [19].
Later in the project the KHEOPS shape was modied to some extent with
open aps to give the nal EXPERT model conguration 4.2 (see Fig. 5.51),
[19, 21, 22].
At this time (2013) it is planned to perform three ballistic re-entry ights
with three expendable EXPERT vehicles. These vehicles are equipped with
dierent types of instrumentation for measuring aerothermodynamic data.
The launch system selected is the Russian VOLNA rocket.
5.7.1
The KHEOPS conguration is a spherically blunted pyramidal shape featuring four aps. It has been designed to meet the study of three-dimensional
eects around the aps, separation and reattachment heating, heating in
corners with radiation eects, etc.. The conguration is described by the
following quantities, Figs. 5.52 and 5.53 :
nose radius
pyramidal dihedral angle
base diameter
total length
reference length
reference area
0.270 m,
17 ,
1.3 m,
1.08 m,
1.08 m,
1.2084 m2 ,
160
Fig. 5.50. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: KHEOPS, the pyramid based conguration with genuine aps, [19]
Fig. 5.51. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: model 4.2 with two open and two
closed aps, [19]
5.7 EXPERT (Europe)
deection angles of aps

hinge line of the aps at
161
15 and 20 ,
xbf = 0.850 m.
In order to optimize the EXPERT mission the KHEOPS conguration was

varied by the following steps leading to the EXPERT model 4.2, Figs. 5.54,
5.55 and [19] :
the spherical nose was replaced by an ellipsoid with an eccentricity of 2.5,

the main shape consists now of a cone with a semi-apertural angle of 12.5 ,
the cone is cut with four planes having a deection angle of 9 ,
four aps are mounted with deection angles of 20 , two of them in closed
form and two of them in open form,
the ap width was 0.4 m and the projected length 0,3 m,
the total length was extended to 1.6 m,
the reference area amounts to (wetted base area) 1.1877 m2 .
Fig. 5.52. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: Details of the KHEOPS model, side
view, [19]
5.7.2
Longitudinal Motion
KHEOPS configuration
162
Fig. 5.53. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: Details of the KHEOPS model,
front view, [19]
Fig. 5.54. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: Details of model 4.2 with two open
and two closed aps, side view, [19]
5.7 EXPERT (Europe)
163
Fig. 5.55. 3D shape of the EXPERT project: Details of model 4.2 with two open
and two closed aps, view from behind, [19]
The aerodynamics of the KHEOPS model was exclusively investigated

by numerical simulations using the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, [19].
The following four gures (Figs. 5.56 - 5.59) show the lift, the drag and the
pitching moment coecients as well as the lift-to-drag ratio. The number of
calculations3 was limited to 10, covering the Mach number range between
2 M 22.5 and the angle of attack range between 0 10 . Indeed
these are only a few points, but nevertheless these data are sucient to reveal
a tendency of the KHEOPS aerodynamics.
Most of the aerodynamic data behave like expected, but there are two
exceptions. First, the small increase of the lift slope with increasing Mach
number is astonishing, Fig. 5.56. Normally, one would expect a decrease of the
lift slope. Second, the non-monotonicity of the slope of the pitching moment
coecient Cm with respect to increasing Mach numbers cannot be explained,
Fig. 5.59.
There were ten more computations, but with a turn of the model around the
meridional angles = 45 and 90 , in order to care for yaw eects. The yaw
eects arise due to the unsymmetrical ow eld generated by the dierent ap
deection angles bf = 15 and 20 .
164
5 Aerothermodynamic Data of RV-NWs - Cones and Bicones 0.2

0.18
lift coefficient C
0.16
M=2.0
M=6.0
M=10
M=22.5
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
4
6
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.56. EXPERT model KHEOPS: Lift coecient CL as function of the angle
of attack , [19]
0.8
M=2.0
M=6.0
M=10
M=22.5
drag coefficient CD
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
4
6
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.57. EXPERT model KHEOPS: Drag coecient CL as function of the angle
of attack , [19]
5.7 EXPERT (Europe)
165
0.4
M=2.0
M=6.0
M=10
M=22.5
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
4
6
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.58. EXPERT model KHEOPS: Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the
angle of attack , [19]
M=2.0
M=6.0
M=10
M=22.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
4
6
angle of attack
10
Fig. 5.59. EXPERT model KHEOPS: Pitching moment coecient Cm as function

of the angle of attack , [19]. Moment reference point: nose tip (xref = 0, zref = 0).
166
EXPERT model 4.2 configuration

For the EXPERT model 4.2, the ight demonstration model, only the wind
tunnel data of [21] are available4 . These data were generated at the ITAM
research institute in Novosibirsk, Russia. They performed in their supersonic
wind tunnel T-313 measurements with M = 4 and in their shock tunnel
AT-303 measurements with M = 13.8. The Figs. 5.60 to 5.63 show the lift,
the drag and the pitching moment coecients as well as the aerodynamic performance L/D. Comparing these data with the ones of the KHEOPS model
(Fig. 5.50 and Figs. 5.56 to 5.59) indicates a good aerodynamic similarity of
these two models. However the lift slope now decreases with increasing Mach
number and Cm behaves like expected.
M=4.0
M=13.8
lift coefficient C
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
6
8
10
angle of attack
12
14
16
Fig. 5.60. EXPERT model 4.2: Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of
attack , [21]
Lateral Motion
Data of the lateral behavior as function of the yawing angle are not
available.
5.7.3

4
Obviously there exists a complete aerodynamic data base for the EXPERT
model 4.2. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the author to obtain it from
ESA/ESTEC.
5.7 EXPERT (Europe)

0.8
167
M=4.0
M=13.8
0.7
drag coefficient CD
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
6
8
10
angle of attack
12
14
16
Fig. 5.61. EXPERT model 4.2: Drag coecient CL as function of the angle of
attack , [21]
M=4.0
M=13.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
6
8
10
angle of attack
12
14
16
Fig. 5.62. EXPERT model 4.2: Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of
attack , [21]
168
M=4.0
M=13.8
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
6
8
10
angle of attack
12
14
16
Fig. 5.63. EXPERT model 4.2: Pitching moment coecient Cm as function of

the angle of attack , [21]. Moment reference point: nose tip (xref = 0, zref = 0).
References
169
References
2. Smith, A.J.: Entry and Vehicle Design Considerations. Capsule Aerothermodynamics, AGARD-R-808, Paper 4 (1997)
3. Weiland, C., Haidinger, F.A.: Entwurf von Kapseln und deren aerothermodynamische Verikatio (Design of Capsules and Verication of their Aerothermodynamics. In: Proceedings DGLR-Fachsymposium Str
omungen mit Abl
osung
(November 1996) (not published)
4. Davies, C.B., Park, C.: Aerodynamics of Generalized Bent Biconics for AeroAssisted, Orbital-Transfer Vehicles. J. of Spacecraft 22(2), 104111 (1985)
5. Miller, C.G., Blackstock, T.A., Helms, V.T., Midden, R.E.: An Experimental Investigation of Control Surface Eectiveness and Real-Gas Simulation for
Biconics. AIAA-Paper 83-0213 (1983)
6. Ivanov, N.M.: Catalogue of Dierent Shapes for Unwinged Re-entry Vehicles.
Final report, ESA Contract 10756/94/F/BM (1994)
7. N. N. INKA Study Results. Internal industrial communication, Deutsche
Aerospace Dasa, Germany (1993)
8. N.N. CTV Dasa Data Base. Internal industrial communication, Deutsche
Aerospace Dasa, Germany (1994)
9. Menne, S.: Computation of Non-Winged Vehicle Aerodynamics in the Low
Supersonic Range. In: 2nd European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for
Space Vehicles, ESA-SP-367 (1994)
10. Weiland, C., Ptzner, M.: 3D and 2D Solutions of the Quasi-Conservative Euler
Equations. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 264, pp. 654659. Springer (1986)
11. Ptzner, M., Weiland, C.: 3D Euler Solutions for Hypersonic Free-Stream Mach
Numbers. AGARD-CP-428, pp. 22-122-14 (1987)
12. Esch, H.: Kraftmessungen an einem Modell der semiballistischen R
uckkehrkapsel Colibri (Force Measurements on a Model of the Semi-Ballistic Re-entry
Vehicle Colibri). DLR Interal Report, IB -39113-97A04 (1997)
13. Burkhart, J.: Konzeptioneller Systementwurf und Missionsanalyse f
ur den
auftriebsgest
utzten R
uckkehrk
orper (Conceptional System Design and Mission Analysis of a Lifting Re-Entry Vehicle). Doctoral Thesis, University of
Stuttgart, Germany (2001)
14. Marraa, L., Kassing, D., Baglioni, P., Wilde, D., Walther, S., Pilchkhadze,
K., Finchenko, V.: Inatable Re-entry Technologies: Flight Demonstration and
Future Prospects. ESA - Bulletin 103 (August 2000)
15. Jung, G.: Vorlesung Nutzlasten Inatable Re-entry Technology (IRDT). University of Dresden, Germany (2001)
16. N. N. The System, Based on Inatable Units and Intended for Delivery of
Cargos from the International Space Station. Babakin Space Center Internal
Report, ISSDLS-BSC-RP0001 (2000)
170
17. N. N. Industrial communication: EADS - Lavoshkin - ESA (2000)

18. N. N. Private communication (2005)
19. Walpot, L., Ottens, H.: FESART/EXPERT Aerodynamic and Aerothermodynamic Analysis of the REV and KHEOPS Congurations. Technical Report,
TOS-MPA/2718/L.W., ESTEC, Noordwijk (2003)
20. Wong, H., Muylaert, J., Northey, D., Riley, D.: Assessment on EXPERT Descent and Landing System Aerodynamics. ESA-SP-659 (2009)
21. Kharitonov, A.M., Adamov, N.P., Mazhul, I.I., Vasenyov, L.G., Zvegintsev,
V.I., Muylaert, J.: Aerodynamics of the EXPERT Re-Entry Ballistic Vehicle.
ESA-SP-659 (2009)
22. Kharitonov, A.M., Zvegintsev, V.I., Brodetskay, M.D., Mazhul, I.I., Muylaert,
J.M., Kordulla, W., Paulat, J.C.: Aerodynamic Investigation of Aerospace Vehicles in the New Hypersonic Wind Tunnel AT-303 in ITAM. In: 4th Int. Symp.
on Atmosph. Re-entry Vehicle and Systems, Arcachon, France (2005)
Aerothermodynamic Data of Winged Re-entry

Vehicles (RV-W)
The rst period of space transportation was characterized by simple shapes

like capsules and probes. The precision of the operations and the control
capability of such vehicles was rather low. The natural step to improve this
situation was to use in an advanced way the capacity of the atmosphere to
support and control the ight of such space vehicles. Thus the winged space
vehicles were born.
6.1
Introduction
The access to space is a dicult and very expensive task. From the beginning
of the activities in the 1950s and 1960s when men entered for the rst time
Earths orbits the costs had a tremendous magnitude. A race to space had
begun. The main driver for this race was the competition of the two conicting
political and social systems in the world, the capitalism and the communism,
represented by the United States of America1 and the Soviet Union. This
competition was called the cold war.
During that period the nancial resources obviously had no bound. Nobody
did put the question how reasonable and economically technical solutions of
these activities were. The only impetus was, we must be the rst and we
must have the better solution.
Therefore, the rst manned transportation systems ascending to space
orbits were very expensive rockets with capsules on top of these rockets.
The features of capsules (RV-NW) are (besides others):
simple non-winged congurations,
low aerodynamic performance L/D 0.35 (APOLLO and SOYUZ), therefore low down-range and cross-range capabilities ,
low aerodynamic controllability, since no aerodynamic controls are available, only the use of reaction control systems (RCS),
expendable systems,
laborious recovery systems after landing either in water or on ground
(desert),
low comfort for astronauts,
1
And the states of Western Europe.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_6,
171
172
6 Aerothermodynamic Data of RV-Ws
high g-loads during entry,

moderate payload capabilities.
After this period the governments in the United States and the Soviet
Union have thought about advanced transportation systems, namely the
SPACE SHUTTLE system and the BURAN system, which should avoid some
of the drawbacks of the capsules.
The features of these systems (RV-W) are:
winged congurations,
advanced aerodynamic performance2 L/D (L/Dmax 2 in the hypersonic
regime),
high aerodynamic controllability due to body aps, elevons and rudders as
well as speed-brakes,
partly re-usability,
landing on conventional runways,
increased comfort for astronauts,
reduced g-loads during entry,
high payload capabilities.
At that time a discussion commenced about the costs per kg payload to
be transported to space. The launch costs of the conventional rocket based
systems were very high. It was the expectation to reduce these costs by using
the partly reusable SPACE SHUTTLE system. But unfortunately this did
not happened, as the following example for the SPACE SHUTTLE system
shows:
Launch costs approximately 800 billion USD, maximal payload mass in
the SHUTTLE bay approximately 26 to. Therefore costs per kg payload
approximately 30 000 USD.
The main reason for that was the high eort to refurbish the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter for the next ight and in particular the refurbishment of
the thermal protection system (TPS).
Europe as well as Japan had decided in the 1980s to work also on an
autonomous access to space system and started with the HERMES project
(Europe) and the HOPE project (later HOPE-X) (Japan) their own activities. Both projects were from the system point of view and technologically
comparable to the SPACE SHUTTLE system, but were terminated in the
1990s.
The transportation of astronauts and payloads to and from the International Space Station ISS was conducted over a long time by the U.S. SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter and the Russian SOYUZ capsule. Since 2011 when the
SHUTTLE was put o duty, the only access to and from the ISS is by the
SOYUZ capsule.
Because it could not completely be precluded that the scenario exists that
the ISS has to be evacuated due to technical problems or accidents, or that
2
All the presented performance data are untrimmed.
6.1 Introduction
173
astronauts will be taken ill, the need for a Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV) was
becoming urgent. This CRV should be attached permanently to the ISS.
Europe and the US had decided to develop on the basis of the X-24 lifting
body a winged CRV, which got the name X-38. After a lot of development
work in the late 1990s and the fabrication of two demonstrator vehicles, with
which several successful ight demonstrations were performed, the project
was cancelled in the early 2000s, too.
When the cold war ended the governments asked for really economical
solutions!
This resulted in a lot of proposals and system studies carried for a next
generation space transportation system, which should allow for payload transportation costs per kg mass of not more than 1000 USD.
Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles, like the NASP (National Aero-Space
Plane) project of the United States or the HOTOL project of Great Britain,
as well as two-stage-to-orbit systems (TSTO), like Germanys SAENGER
concept, were considered. The European Space Agency ESA launched in the
1990s the Future European Space Transportation Investigation Programme
(FESTIP) with the goal to investigate possible systems in this respect. But
all these activities were scrapped or terminated.
In 1996 the United States started further activities with the X-33 vehicle,
a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) demonstrator with a linear aerospike engine,
and the X-34 vehicle, a ying laboratory for technologies and operations.
Both projects were also scrapped in 2001 due to much too high technical
risks and budgetary problems.
For the demonstration of reusable space technologies and orbital spaceight missions the X-37 project was launched, where in the rst scenario the
vehicle should be transported to a space orbit in the cargo bay of the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter. In 2004 the X-37 project was transferred from NASA to
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and a redesign
took place for launch on an Atlas V rocket. First orbital ight happened in
2010 and two others one in 2011 and 2012.
Actually3 , there is no real industrial project for replacing the SPACE
SHUTTLE system, neither by conventional nor by advanced systems and
technologies.
This is valid at least for the time-period 2010 - 2015.
174
6.2
SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter (USA)
The SPACE SHUTTLE system represents a semi-reusable concept for the

transportation of payloads and men into various (mostly circular) low Earth
orbits. Orbits with distances from the Earth surface between approximately
200 to 1500 km are called low Earth orbits. The SPACE SHUTTLE system
consists of three elements (Fig. 6.1):
the two solid rocket boosters,
the external tank,
the Orbiter vehicle.
During the ascent the boosters are separated from the tank at an altitude
of approximately 50 km (after a burning time of 120 s). The burned-out
boosters are recovered from the Atlantic Ocean, refurbished and relled with
solid propellant. The expendable tank is jettisoned at an altitude of roughly
110 km. A successful mission includes besides the ascent the descent phase,
which consists of the de-orbiting boost of the Orbital Maneuvering System
(OMS), the re-entry process into Earths atmosphere and the proper touch
down and landing on a runway. The whole re-entry process is unpowered.
When back on Earths surface the Orbiter is reused after inspection and
refurbishment. This space transportation concept was the only operational
winged and manned system to reach the orbit and to land horizontally. The
eet has performed 135 ights4 .
The missions of the SPACE SHUTTLE involved carrying large and heavy
payloads to various low Earth orbits including elements of the International
Space Station (ISS), performing service missions, also to satellites, e.g., upgrading the Hubble Space Telescope, and serving as crew transport system
for the ISS.
The SPACE SHUTTLE program was ocially started by the Nixon administration in January 1972. The rst launch took place on April 12, 1981,
followed by the rst re-entry ight on April 14, 1981. Detailed accounts regarding ight experience, aerthermodynamic performance and problems of
the rst operational ights were published in, for instance, [1, 2].
Six Orbiter vehicles were built5 :
4
5
6
Enterprize6 (1977),
Columbia (1981),
Challenger (1983),
Discovery (1984),
Atlantis (1985),
Endeavour (1992).
The last ight with the Orbiter Atlantis took place in July 2011.
Year of rst ight in brackets.
This Orbiter had served as test vehicle regarding the atmospheric ight capability
including terminal approach and landing. The vehicle had not the capability to
perform a real re-entry ight.
6.2 SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter (USA)
175
Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) were lost by accidents7 . The

SPACE SHUTTLE systems were retired from service in July 2011.
Fig. 6.2 shows in the left picture the Orbiter Discovery during landing at
Edwards Air Force Base on Sept. 11, 2009 (STS-128). In the right picture the
touch down phase of the Orbiter Atlantis is captured, which returned from
the mission of upgrading the Hubble Space Telescope. This landing took place
on May 24, 2009 (STS-125).
Fig. 6.1. The SPACE SHUTTLE system, [3]
Challenger in the ascent phase and Columbia in the re-entry phase.
176
Fig. 6.2. Left: Orbiter Discovery (ight STS-128) landing at Edwards Air Force
Base on Sep. 11 2009. Right: Orbiter Atlantis (ight STS-125) landing at Edwards
Air Force Base on May 24 2009 (Mission: Upgrade of the Hubble Space Telescope.).
Pictures from NASAs gallery, [4].
6.2.1
Figs. 6.3 and 6.4 show the side view and the top view of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. The SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter is the largest space transportation vehicle ever built8 , with a total length of 37.238 m and a span
of 23.842 m. The nominal x-coordinate of the center-of-gravity is located
at 21.303 m (0.65 Lref ) measured from the nose or 27.348 m measured in
the congurational coordinate system (see Fig. 6.3). The z-coordinate of the
center-of-gravity amounts to 9.525 m, measured also in the congurational
coordinate system.
The SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter has a double delta wing with sweep angles
of 45 and 81 degrees. The three main engines are the most powerful rockets
ever designed, each with a vacuum thrust of 2100 kN ( 214 tons) and a
specic impulse of 455.2 s. The rockets of the Orbital Maneuvering System
(OMS) are contained in the pods on the aft fuselage of the SHUTTLE Orbiter and generate a thrust of 27 kN ( 2.7 tons) each. These rockets are
responsible for the generation of the thrust for the nal orbit transfer and for
the boost necessary for the initialization of the de-orbiting process. Further,
a Reaction Control System (RCS) is installed, which consists of thrusters of
the 500 N class. This RCS system conducts the pitch, yaw and roll control
during the rst part of the re-entry trajectory and is active as long as the
aerodynamic control surfaces are not fully eective (approximately down to
M 5).
Design and equipment details of the SHUTTLE Orbiter can be found in
Fig. 6.5, where also the payload bay is indicated, which measures 4.5 m (15
8
The size of the Russian BURAN is comparable to the U.S. SPACE SHUTTLE
Orbiter, but this vehicle never became operational.
177
Fig. 6.3. Shape denition of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. Side view, [1, 5]
178
Fig. 6.4. Shape denition of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. Top view, [1, 5]
179
ft) by 18 m (60 ft). The mass capacity of the payload bay amounts to 24.4
tons for the low Earth orbit (LEO) and 3.81 tons for the geostationary orbit
(GTO)9 . The landing speed amounts to approximately 340 km/h (95 m/s).
Some interesting measures, quantities and reference values are listed in Tab.
6.1.
During the European HERMES project, in the frame of research and development activities, some institutions had the task to investigate the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter aerodynamics. Besides numerical ow eld computations
some wind tunnel investigations were performed. In Fig. 6.6 a 1:90 SHUTTLE Orbiter model, mounted in the S4 tunnel of ONERA, Modane France,
is presented (left). The right part of the gure gives a top view of this model,
[6].
During this wind tunnel campaign oil ow pictures, representing the skinfriction-line patterns at the leeward side and the windward side were made,
Fig. 6.7. Fig. 6.8 shows skin-friction lines at the windward side from nonequilibrium real gas Navier-Stokes solutions, [8, 9]. To ease the numerical
computation the ow elds were calculated past the HALIS conguration,
which has the same windward side as the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, but a
simplied leeward side. The HALIS conguration was introduced in [7].
6.2.2
In the 1970s the numerical methods for solving the governing uid-dynamical
equations (Euler and Navier-Stokes equations) were not in a state to calculate
three-dimensional ow elds past complex congurations for the determination (besides the ow eld quantities) of the aerodynamic coecients10 . At
that time the numerical tools did not contribute to the establishment of the
aerodynamic data bases of airplanes and in particular not of space vehicles.
That is the reason why the aerodynamic coecients, which we present below,
were mainly obtained from wind tunnel tests. Here lie also the roots of the
so-called pitching moment anomaly, which was observed during the rst reentry ight of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. For a more recent explanation
of this anomaly, see [10].
Longitudinal Motion
In the following gures the coecients of lift CL , drag CD and pitching
moment Cm as well as the aerodynamic performance L/D are plotted for
the Mach number regime 0.25 M 20. Due to the substantial spread of
the data separate diagrams are presented for the subsonic-transonic (0.25
M 0.98), the transonic-supersonic (1.1 M 4) and the supersonichypersonic (5 M 20) Mach number regimes. All the data are taken
9
10
The geostationary transfer orbit GTO is an elliptical orbit, where the apogee distance is consistent with the radius of the circular geosynchronized orbit (GEO).
This had happened later in the century mainly during the European HERMES
project at the beginning of the 1990s.
180
Fig. 6.5. SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter: Design and equipment details, [3]
Fig. 6.6. SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter: Photos from the S4 wind tunnel campaign.
Model in the wind tunnel (left), top view of the model (right), model size 1:90, [6]
181
Table 6.1. SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter shape: dimensions, quantities and reference
values, [1, 5]. See also Figs. 6.3 and 6.4.
total length
Ltot
37.238 m
total width
Wtot
23.842 m
reference length
Lref
32.774 m
reference area
Sref
249.909 m2
reference chord
length (M.A.C.)
12.060 m
x-coordinate of the
center-of-gravity,
nominal
xcog
27.348 m 0.65 Lref

Fig. 6.3
z-coordinate of the
center-of-gravity,
nominal
zcog
9.525 m
Fig. 6.3
empty mass
me
78 000 kg
gross mass
at launch
mg
110 000 kg
Fig. 6.7. SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter: Photos from the S4 wind tunnel campaign.
Oil ow picture at the leeward side (left) and at the windward side (right), M =
9.77, = 30 , [6].
182
Fig. 6.8. HALIS conguration: Non-equilibrium real gas Navier-Stokes solutions.

Skin-friction lines at the windward side. High enthalpy F4 wind tunnel conditions
with M = 8.86, = 40 . First solution (upper left) from Ref. [8], and second
solution (right) from [9]. Solution for ight conditions with M = 24, = 40 , H =
72 km (lower left) from [8].
from [5]. For Mach numbers up to M = 4 data are available for the angle of
attack regime 10 25 , whereas for higher Mach numbers the angle
of attack regime is 10 45 .
For subsonic-transonic Mach numbers the lift coecient behaves linearly
up to 20 with only moderate changes of the gradient CL /, Fig. 6.9.
With rising Mach number the gradient CL / reduces substantially, Fig.
6.10. For hypersonic Mach numbers we observe on the one hand a positive
lift curve break up to 35 (CL / increases with increasing ) and on
the other hand the validity of the Mach number independence rule [10], Fig.
6.11. The lift curve break for hypersonic Mach numbers is typical for this
class of space vehicles.
The drag coecient is largest for transonic Mach numbers, Figs. 6.12, 6.13,
and becomes Mach number independent in the hypersonic ight regime, 6.14.
Further the drag coecient has its minimum for all Mach numbers at small
angles of attack, as expected, and rises then fast (quadratically) to large
values.
The maximum lift-to-drag ratio exists in the subsonic regime (M = 0.25)
with L/D|max 4.25 for an angle of attack value of 12 . This reduces to L/D|max 2.35 for M = 0.98, Fig. 6.15. A further increase
of the Mach number lowers additionally the maximum lift-to-drag value
(L/D|max,M =20 2), whereby this maximum is shifted to larger angles
of attack (L/Dmax 18 ), Figs. 6.16 and 6.17.
The SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter ies during the rst part of the re-entry
trajectory with an angle of attack of approximately 40 , for which from Fig.
6.17 an aerodynamic performance of L/D 1 can be extracted.
When we turn towards the pitching moment we nd for the low subsonic
Mach number M = 0.25 only a marginal static stability (Cm / 0) and
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.92
M=0.98
lift coefficient C
0.8
183
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
lift coefficient C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
184
lift coefficient C
0.8
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
10
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
Fig. 6.11. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
1
0.9
drag coefficient CD
0.8
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.92
M=0.98
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.12. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic Mach numbers, [5]

1
0.9
drag coefficient CD
0.8
185
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.13. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [5]
1
0.9
drag coefficient CD
0.8
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
Fig. 6.14. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
186
no trim. This behavior is similar for M = 0.6, but when the Mach number
approaches unity static stability is extensively growing and trim is achieved.
Static stability reduces again, but is still available when the Mach number
rises further up to M = 2. Then for M = 3 and 4 the stability becomes
indierent (Cm / 0) and no trim is possible, see Figs. 6.18, 6.19. All
that holds for the nominal center-of-gravity position xcog /Lref = 0.6511 .
In the Mach number regime 0.6 M 1.5 one observes for 20
a more or less sudden change of the pitching moment derivative Cm /
to positive values indicating static instability, whereby this trend can also be
found for the HOPE-X shape (Section 6.8) and the PHOENIX shape (Section
6.7). For hypersonic Mach numbers static stability is only achieved for larger
angles of attack ( > 20 ), but the vehicle can not be trimmed there, Fig.
6.20.
In the case that a vehicle behaves unstable and/or can not be trimmed for
a given set-up of center-of-gravity position and deection angles of body ap
and elevons (if available), trim and stability can be achieved in most cases
by changing this set-up. A shift of the center-of-gravity rearwards decreases
stability and the pitching moment grows (stronger pitch up behavior), in the
opposite case, when the center-of-gravity is shifted forwards the stability increases and the pitching moment diminishes (stronger pitch down behavior).
Positive deections of body ap and elevons have the eect to strengthen
the pitch down part and to increase the stability, whereas negative deection
angles let in general the pitching moment rise and the stability decline.
To demonstrate the inuence of a positive (downward) body ap deection
(say bf = 10 ) for the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter the pitching moment
curves for the Mach numbers M = 0.25, 0.6, 0.8 are considered, which did
show for bf = 0 only marginal stability and approximately no trim, Fig.
6.18. Despite that, when the body ap is deected to bf = 10 , the pitching
moment is reduced, the stability is increased (this means that Cm / is
lowered) and trim exists for all the three Mach numbers, Fig. 6.21. Actually
the descend ights of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter in the hypersonic regime
happened unstable, [10]. The body ap as main trim surface is deected
downwards.
Lateral Motion
Side force, yawing and rolling moment coecients are presented in Figs. 6.22
to 6.33. For a better reading of the gures the Mach number regime is again
separated into the three parts subsonic-transonic, transonic-supersonic and
supersonic-hypersonic. The side force coecients as function of the yaw angle
behave linearly for most of the plotted Mach numbers and the negative
slope of the curves decreases with increasing Mach number, except for the
very near transonic regime, Figs. 6.22 to 6.24. Fig. 6.25, where the side force
11
The actual longitudinal center-of-gravity envelope of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter at entry altitude (121.92 km) up to the year 1995 was 0.65 xcog /Lref
0.675, [11].

5
4
187
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.92
M=0.98
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
5
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.16. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [5]
188

5
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
10
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.92
M=0.98
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack

for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [5]. The x-position of the center-of-gravity is
xcog /Lref = 0.65.
189
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30

for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [5]. The x-position of the center-of-gravity
is xcog /Lref = 0.65.
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [5]. The x-position of the center-of-gravity is
xcog /Lref = 0.65.
190
0.06
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
10
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter with body ap deection bf = 10 . Plotted are the
data of three subsonic Mach numbers, [5]. The x-position of the center-of-gravity
is xcog /Lref = 0.65.
coecient as function of the Mach number (at = 6 ) is plotted, emphasizes

this transonic eect. Further it should be mentioned that from the Mach
number M 8 on the side force coecient is Mach number independent,
Fig. 6.24.
The yawing moment Cn for = 0 has a positive slope in the whole
Mach number regime indicating directional stability, Figs. 6.26 - 6.28. The
slope follows a monotonic trend, similar to that of the side force, namely
to decrease with increasing Mach number but breaks this trend in the near
transonic regime, where the slope has a maximum, Fig. 6.29. Mach number
independency is given beyond M 8, Fig. 6.28.
The rolling moment Cl for = 0 is presented in Figs. 6.30 to 6.32. The
slope is always negative indicating a roll damping eect and decreases with
growing Mach number with the same exception in the near transonic regime
as for the other values mentioned above, Fig. 6.33.
The conclusion is that the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter ies laterally stable.
6.2.3
The dynamic pitch motion is normally described by the coecient Cm +Cmq ,

with Cm being the change in the pitching moment coecient due to the rate
191
0
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.98
side force coefficient CY
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.22. Side force coecient CY as function of the angle of yaw at angle of
attack = 0 for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [5].
0
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
attack = 0 for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [5]
192

0
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
attack = 0 for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
0.06
0.07
beta=6
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0
10
Mach number
15
20
Fig. 6.25. Side force coecient CY as function of the Mach number ( = 0 ) at

the angle of yaw = 6 , [5]
193
0.04
0.035
0.03
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.98
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.26. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the angle of yaw at the
angle of attack = 0 for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [5]
0.04
0.035
0.03
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
angle of attack = 0 for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [5]
194

0.04
yawing moment coefficient Cn
0.035
0.03
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
angle of attack = 0 for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
0.025
beta=6
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
Mach number
15
20
Fig. 6.29. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the Mach number ( = 0 )

at the angle of yaw = 6 , [5]
195
0.005
0.01
0.02
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.98
0.025
0
0.015
4
6
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.30. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of angle of yaw at the angle
of attack = 0 for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [5]
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=4.0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.31. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the angle of yaw at the
angle of attack = 0 for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [5]
196

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0
M=5.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=20.0
4
6
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.32. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the angle of yaw at the
angle of attack = 0 for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
beta=6
0.005
0.01
0.015
0
10
Mach number
15
20
Fig. 6.33. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the Mach number ( = 0 )

at the angle of yaw = 6 , [5]
197
of change of the angle of attack (per radian) and Cmq the change in the
pitching moment coecient due to the pitch rate q (per radian). In [5] no
distinction is made between these components and therefore only Cmq is
considered (Cmq Cm + Cmq !). Figs. 6.34, 6.35 show for all Mach numbers
and all angles of attack negative Cmq values indicating that pitch damping
is ensured throughout.
0
pitch damping coefficient C
mq
1
2
3
4
M=0.25
M=0.60
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.05
M=1.20
5
6
7
8
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 6.34. Pitch damping coecient Cmq as function of the angle of attack for
0
M=1.3
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=5.0
M=10.0
M=20.0
pitch damping coefficient Cmq
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 6.35. Pitch damping coecient Cmq as function of the angle of attack for
transonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [5]
198
6.3
X-33 Vehicle (USA)
The development and fabrication of the U.S. SPACE SHUTTLE system had
allowed for a rst time to bring humans and payload to space and back
by a winged space vehicle. The SPACE SHUTTLE program was started in
1972 and the rst ight took place in April 1981, see Chapter 6.2. Prior to
that time humans and payloads were transported into space only by capsules
(non-winged re-entry vehicles), whereby the costs per transported payload
mass are very high. The expectation was that these costs could be considerably reduced by the SPACE SHUTTLE system, but this never happened due
to, besides others, the very high refurbishment costs of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. To overcome this problem the NASA had thought about a
fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space vehicle having a combined
ram/scram/rocket propulsion system, which is able to start and land horizontally (NASAs National Aerospace Plane Program NASP), [12]. But it
turned out that the technological challenges were so exceptional, that a realization was not possible at that time. Therefore the NASP program was
cancelled in 1993.
Instead, NASA launched a research program12 in 1996 in order to develop
and then to test key technologies with specic experimental vehicles. One of
these vehicles was the X-33 demonstrator13 . The X-33 demonstrator was a
single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) reusable launch vehicle (RLV) with the capability to launch vertically and to land horizontally on a conventional runway,
Fig. 6.36. The propulsion system was given by two linear aerospike engines,
which are special kinds of rocket motors, [13]. The intention was to prove
the feasibility of the SSTO-RLV concept through demonstration of the key
technologies and operational aspects of the vehicle. However, technical and
costs concerns led to the cancellation of the project in 2001.
6.3.1
The shape of the X-33 vehicle consists of a delta formed lifting body with
two 20 dihedral canted ns, two windward side body aps and two vertical
tails, Fig. 6.37. The size of the lifting body is constructed such that it can
accommodate the tanks for the liquid oxygen and the liquid hydrogen, which
are the propellants of the linear aerospike rocket motors.
12
13
The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Technology Program, as partnership of

NASA, the U.S. Air Force and private industry.
The prime contractor of the X-33 demonstrator program was Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin had also planned to build on the basis of the X-33 an operable
hypersonic vehicle twice as large as the X-33, called the Venture Star.
6.3 X-33 Vehicle (USA)
199
Fig. 6.36. Three synthetic images of the X-33 demonstrator: view from rear (left),
vehicle in launch position (middle), front view (right), [4]
Fig. 6.37. Shape denition of the X-33 conguration, engineering drawings with
dimensions, [14, 15]
200

Table 6.2. Reference values for the X-33 vehicle, [15]
6.3.2
reference length
Lref = 19.3 m (63.2 ft)
reference area
Sref = 149.4 m2 (1608 ft2 )
pitching moment
reference point
xref = 12.71 m (41.7 ft)

= 0.66 Lref
Aerodynamic data exist for the Mach number regime 4 M 10 and

angles of attack 0 50 . Both, wind tunnel tests and numerical ow
eld simulations have contributed to the establishment of the aerodynamic
data set. Two air wind tunnels14 for M = 6 and 10 of NASAs Langley
Research Center were applied for the generation of the basic data comprising
longitudinal and lateral forces and moments.
Tests in Langleys CF4 tunnel15 for M = 6 were performed in order
to investigate the magnitude of the shock density ratio on the aerodynamic
coecients. Despite the fact that the CF4 gas behaves perfect, a hint on
the inuence of real gas eects on the aerodynamics is given by these data,
since the ratio of specic heats of CF4 amounts to CF4 = 1.22, which is
considerably lower than that for perfect gas air with air = 1.4.
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic coecients presented in Figs. 6.40 to 6.43 are taken from
the references [14] and [15]. The curves for the Mach numbers M = 6 and
10 stem from tests in the before mentioned NASA wind tunnels, [15], whereas
for M = 4, 5 and 8 numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations are
the origin of the data, [14].
The lift coecient data exhibit almost linear behavior for all Mach numbers between 10 and 40 . For larger values CL becomes non-linear
due to the enforced generation of leeside vortices, which is common for all
delta wing like congurations. A further general trend is the decrease of CL
with increasing Mach number, Fig. 6.40. This is true also for the drag coecient CD . The dierences of the drag data for the plotted Mach number
values (4 M 10) are small, Fig. 6.41. The aerodynamic performance
for M = 4 is highest with L/Dmax = 1.25 at = 20 , while L/Dmax at
Mach 10 is 1.2 at a shifted angle of attack value 24 , Fig. 6.42.
The pitching moment characteristics are shown in Fig. 6.43. All the Mach
numbers possess an angle of attack range, where the vehicle is statically
14
15
LaRC 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel and LaRC 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel .
LaRC 20-Inch Mach 6 CF4 Tunnel .
201
Fig. 6.38. X-33 ow eld; wind tunnel conditions are M = 6 and = 20 . Mach
number isolines of numerical solution (left), wind tunnel Schlieren image (right),
[14].
Fig. 6.39. X-33 ow eld; wind tunnel conditions are M = 6 and = 20 .

Windward side oil ow image (left), skin-friction lines at the windward side (middle)
and at the leeward side (right), both evaluated from a numerical solution, [14].
stable. The general Cm behavior for the given reference point xref =
0.66 Lref is slightly dierent for the data coming from the numerical simulations (M = 4, 5 and 8, [14]) compared to the wind tunnel data (M = 6
and 10, [15]). The reason for that is unexplained. Cm indicates longitudinal
stability for M = 4 at 10 40 , for M = 5 at 10 50 , for
M = 6 at 15 50 , for M = 8 at 20 50 and for M = 10 at
202
22 45 . It should be mentioned that there is obviously a slight trend

to lower Cm values (decreased pitch-up moment) in the numerical solutions.
Further, we point out that there exists an unexplained crossover of the
Cm curves for M = 6 and 10, which was observed both in experiments and
numerical simulations, [15, 16].
A concluding observation was that real gas eects have only little inuence
on the aerodynamic coecients of the X-33 vehicle in the considered Mach
number regime as tests in NASAs CF4 Mach 6 tunnel [15], and numerical
solutions [17], have shown.
The data of the pitching moment in Fig. 6.43 indicate a possible vehicle
trim around 40 for M = 4, 5 and 8, but no trim for M = 6 and
10. There is indeed, as already mentioned, an ambiguity with respect to the
uniqueness of the data. Nevertheless, an inspection of the inuence of body
ap deections on the pitching moment is useful. We do that for the M = 6
case with body ap deections of bf = 0 , 10 , 20 in Fig. 6.44. It can
be seen that already a deection angle of bf = 10 leads to such a strong
pitch-down eect that vehicle trim is possible at trim 20 . This shows
that the eectiveness of the body aps is denitely strong enough to control
the vehicle, particularly since the maximum body ap deection is bf = 30 .
But we will advert to another ow eect in connection with the body
ap, namely that the pitching moment curve for bf = 20 has an inection
point around 37 , Fig. 6.44. When the bow shock interacts with the
embedded body ap shock an expansion zone is generated, which impinges
around 37 on the lower side of the body ap. Correspondingly the
pressure on the body ap lower surface is decreased and a pitch-up eect
arises.
Lateral Motion
Directional stability is given when the yawing moment Cn has a positive
slope with respect to the yawing angle . This is not the case for the X-33
vehicle for M = 6 and 10 as Fig. 6.45 shows. There, Cn / is negative
in the whole angle of attack regime, indicating directional instability, which
is common for this type of aerospace congurations. The small twin vertical
tails in the aft part of the upper side of the vehicle contribute only little to
the yaw stability, in particular when at higher angles of attack the tails lie in
the hypersonic shadow of the ow eld.
The rolling moment derivative Cl / is negative for all angles of attack
> 4 . The two 20 dihedral canted ns generate mainly this negative Cl
demonstrating the damping of roll motion, which increases nearly linearly
with increasing angle of attack, Fig. 6.46. Wing dihedral (positive and negative) is long since a well known measure to ensure roll damping.
6.3.3
Results of investigations of the dynamic stability are not available.
0.9
0.8
lift coefficient CL
0.7
203
M = 4.0
M = 5.0
M = 6.0
M = 8.0
M = 10.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.40. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [14, 15]
drag coefficient CD
0.8
M = 4.0
M = 5.0
M = 6.0
M = 8.0
M = 10.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.41. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [14, 15]
204
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
M = 4.0
M = 5.0
M = 6.0
M = 8.0
M = 10.0
0.2
0
0.2
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [14, 15]
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.01
0
M = 4.0
M = 5.0
M = 6.0
M = 8.0
M = 10.0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50

for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [14, 15]. The moment reference point is
xref = 0.66 Lref .
205
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
bf = 0
0.025
= 10
bf
0.03
bf = 20
0.035
0.04
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.44. Inuence of the body ap deection on the pitching moment coecient
Cm as function of the angle of attack for the free-stream Mach number M = 6,
[15]. The moment reference point is xref = 0.66 Lref .
3
x 10
yawing moment derivative C
M=6
M = 10
0.5
1.5
2.5
3
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.45. The yawing moment derivative Cn (criterion of directional stability)

as function of angle of the attack for the free-stream Mach numbers M = 6 and
10, [15]
206

3
x 10
rolling moment derivative C
M=6
M = 10
0
10
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.46. The rolling moment derivative Cl (dihedral eect due to the canted
wings) as function of the angle of attack for the free-stream Mach numbers
M = 6 and 10, [15]
6.4
207
X-34 Vehicle (USA)
As mentioned already in Section 6.3 NASA had cancelled its National

Aerospace Plane (NASP) program in 1993, and launched in 1996 a new activity called Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Technology Program, a partnership
among NASA, the U.S. Air Force and private industry. This program had
encompassed three demonstrator vehicles, with the primary goal to develop
and investigate key technologies, which should signicantly lower the cost of
access to space, necessary for the design and operation of a future reusable
launch vehicle.
The rst ight demonstrator was the Delta Clipper Experimental Advanced (DC-XA)16 vehicle initialized, designed and tested by McDonnell
Douglas, Fig. 6.47.
Fig. 6.47. Delta Clipper Experimental Advanced vehicle, [4]
This vehicle should mainly demonstrate, [12, 18]

the ight control system,
the aircraft-like operability through a low turnaround time,
the vertical ascent and landing capability.
After an accidentthe oxygen tank explodedthe program was terminated
at the end of 1996.
The second vehicle was the X-33 demonstrator, already described in Section 6.3, with Lockheed Martin as prime contractor.
16
This initiative was already started in the beginning of the 1990s by Mc Donnell
Douglas as the Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) project.
208
The third demonstrator vehicle, called X-34, was developed by the Orbital
Sciences Corporation and was to serve as test bed for new technologies and
progressive operations, [18] - [20]. These were:
lightweight primary and secondary composite structures,

reusable composite propellant tanks,
advanced thermal protection system (TPS),
ush air data system,
integrated low cost avionics using dierential Global Positioning System
(GPS),
rapid turn-around times,
airplane-like operations at all weather conditions,
autonomous ight including automatic landing.
Three vehicles were built in order to perform the ambitious ight test
program, which had the goal to reach nally a maximum speed of M = 8
at an altitude of 76 km. The X-34 was to be air-launched from an L-1011
carrier aircraft at M = 0.7 and an altitude of approximately 11500 m, Fig.
6.48. It was to be powered by a new low-cost rocket engine called Fastrac.
Fig. 6.49 shows two photographs of the X-34 vehicle on the ground.
In March 2001 NASA decided to scrap the X-34 vehicle program, since the
projected cost of completing the vehicle had hit an unacceptable level and
the program too many technical risks.
Fig. 6.48. The X-34 vehicle underneath of the L-1011 carrier (left), free ight test
including automatic terminal approach and landing (right), [4, 21]
6.4.1
The X-34 planform is remotely similar to that of the SPACE SHUTTLE

Orbiter. The vehicle has a double delta wing with a 45 sweep of the main
wing and a 80 leading edge strake. A wing dihedral of 6 was chosen to
209
Fig. 6.49. The X-34 vehicle on the test range: lateral front view (left), lateral
view from behind (right), [4, 21]
control roll motion. The reference values are listed in Table 6.3. Full span
elevons serve as part of the pitch control when symmetrically deected and
roll control when asymmetrically deected. Another element to control the
pitch movement is given by the body ap mounted at the back part of the
fuselage underneath the engine nozzle. Directional stability is secured by a
vertical tail as long as angle of attack and Mach number are in a range
that the tail does not lie in the ow shadow. Fig. 6.50 shows the vehicles
conguration including the main dimensions.
Table 6.3. Reference dimensions of the X-34 vehicle, [18, 19]
6.4.2
reference length
Lref = 646.9 in. (16.43 m)
reference width
Bref = 332.9 in. (8.45 m)
reference height
Lref = 142.2 in. (3.61 m)
reference area
Sref = 357.5 ft2 (33.21 m2 )
moment
reference point
xref = 420 in. (10.67 m)

= 0.65 Lref
Aerodynamic data exist for steady longitudinal and lateral motions. The main
part of the investigations had been performed in the wind tunnels of NASA
210
Fig. 6.50. Shape denition of the X-34 conguration, synthetic images with measures, [18, 19]
211
Langleys Research Center17 . The Mach number covered the range from 0.25
to 10, and the angle of attack that from -5 to 40 , [18] - [20]. In another
campaign numerical simulations solving the Euler equations were conducted
for Mach numbers 1.25 M 6 and angles of attack 4 32 , [22].
Longitudinal Motion
The lift coecient CL , Fig. 6.51, for M = 0.4 is linear up to 12
where an increase of the curve shape can be observed which is due to the
generation of vortices over the wing (vortex lift). It seems that the vortex lift
breaks down when the Mach number increases (M = 0.8, 0.9, 1.05). For
the Mach number M = 2 CL is linear in the angle of attack regime plotted.
Increasing the Mach number to M 4 exhibits the typical non-linear CL
curves known for such kinds of vehicles.
The drag at given angle of attack has a maximum for transonic speed
(M = 1.05). Around zero angle of attack the subsonic drag (M = 0.4)
and the hypersonic drag ((M = 6)) have similar values. For higher angles
of attack the drag is lowest for hypersonic Mach numbers, Fig. 6.52.
The aerodynamic performance L/D has its maximum value for the subsonic Mach number M = 0.4 with L/Dmax 7 at max 7 . With increasing Mach number the maximum value decreases, while max decreases
for M < 1. In supersonic-hypersonic ow the L/D curves are attened with
a maximum of L/D of approximately 2.5, Fig. 6.53.
A view onto the pitching moment diagram (Fig. 6.54) reveals that Cm is
negative for all Mach numbers and angles of attack (nose-down moment). This
is an indication that negative deections (upwards) of the control surfaces
would be needed to trim the vehicle. The vehicle is unstable or neutrally
stable in the subsonic regime (M 0.8) for lower angles of attack ( 12 ).
In the transonic-supersonic regime (M = 0.9, 1.05, 2) the vehicle becomes
stable (Cm / < 0) due to the aft movement of the center-of-pressure up
to angles of attack 13 . For the given pitching moment references point
(xref = 0.65 Lref ) static instability can be observed in the hypersonic regime
for angles of attack 25 , where for higher values a slight tendency to
static stability can be identied, Fig. 6.54. Generally, the pitching moment
is less nose-down when the Mach number reaches hypersonic values.
17
the following ve wind tunnels were used:
LaRC 14-by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (LTPT) for M = 0.25,

LaRC 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel (16-ft TT) for 0.3 M 1.3, 4 25 ,
LaRC Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT-1, UPWT-2) for 1.45 M 2.86
(UPTW-1) and 2.3 M 4.6 (UPWT-2), 12 22 ,
LaRC 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel for M = 6, 4 40 ,
LaRC 31-Inch Mach 10 Air Tunnel for M = 10, 4 40 .
212
1.6
M = 0.4
M = 0.8
M = 0.9
M = 1.05
M = 2.0
M = 4.0
M = 6.0
M = 7.0
1.4
lift coefficient CL
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
Fig. 6.51. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for subsonic to
hypersonic Mach numbers, [18, 19]
M = 0.4
M = 0.8
M = 0.9
M = 1.05
M = 2.0
M = 6.0
drag coefficient CD
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
Fig. 6.52. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for subsonic
to hypersonic Mach numbers, [18, 19]
213
8
M = 0.4
M = 0.8
M = 0.9
M = 1.05
M = 2.0
M = 6.0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
Fig. 6.53. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for subsonic
to hypersonic Mach numbers, [18, 19]
0.05
0.1
M = 0.4
M = 0.8
M = 0.9
M = 1.05
M = 2.0
M = 4.0
M = 6.0
M = 10.0
0.15
0.2
0.25
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40

for subsonic to hypersonic Mach numbers, [18, 19]. The moment reference point is
at xref = 0.65 Lref .
214
Lateral Motion
Figs. 6.55 and 6.56 are ambiguous in view of the directional stability (yawing moment) of the vehicle. As is well known, directional stability requires
a positive gradient of the yawing moment coecient Cn with respect to the
yaw angle (Cn / > 0). At an angle of attack of = 18 Cn / is negative for the plotted Mach numbers (M = 1.25, 2, 6) indicating directional
instability, Fig. 6.55. On the other hand Fig. 6.56 exhibits that for lower angles of attack ( 12 ) the vehicle is directionally stable for M = 1.25,
which is also true for M = 0.9. At increasing Mach numbers (M = 2, 6)
the vehicle is denitely directionally unstable.
Roll attenuation or damping of roll motion is shown in Figs. 6.57 and
6.58. If the derivative of the rolling moment coecient with respect to the
yawing angle is negative roll motion is abated, the vehicle is stable in roll. At
= 18 this is the case for all Mach numbers, Fig. 6.57, where with increasing
Mach number the vehicle is less stable in roll. For transonic Mach numbers
(M = 0.9, 1.25) Cl / is negative for nearly all angles of attack, whereas
for higher Mach numbers (M = 2, 6) roll instability occurs for angles of
attack 10 , Fig. 6.58. Generally, Cl / becomes more negative when
the angle of attack grows, which is due to the increase of the eectiveness of
the wing dihedral.
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0
M = 1.25, = 18
M = 2.0, = 18
M = 6.0, = 18
1
3
4
angle of yaw
Fig. 6.55. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the yaw angle , [18, 19].
The moment reference point is xref = 0.65 Lref .
215
x 10
M = 0.90
M = 1.25
M = 2.0
M = 6.0
yawing moment derivative C
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 6.56. Yawing moment derivative Cn as function of the angle of attack ,

[18, 19]. The moment reference point is xref = 0.65 Lref .
3
x 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
M = 0.90, = 18
M = 1.25, = 18
M = 2.0, = 18
M = 6.0, = 18
1
3
4
angle of yaw
Fig. 6.57. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the yaw angle , [18, 19]
216

3
x 10
M = 0.90
M = 1.25
M = 2.0
M = 6.0
roll moment derivative C
0.5
0.5
1.5
2
0
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 6.58. Rolling moment derivative Cl as function of the angle of attack ,

[18, 19]
6.4.3
6.5
217
X-37 Vehicle (USA)
The X-37 was the third in the series of advanced reusable technology demonstrators following the X-33 and X-34 vehicles. Whereas those demonstrators
were designed to ight test technologies at lower altitudes and speeds, the
X-37 would be the rst to explore the orbital and re-entry phases of ight.
Fig. 6.59 exhibits the test envelopes of the three space vehicles, [23].
In 1996 the United States started the activities with the X-33 vehicle, a
single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) demonstrator with a linear aerospike engine, and
the X-34 vehicle, being a ying laboratory for technologies and operations.
Both projects were scrapped in 2001, due to much too high technical risks
and budgetary problems.
For the demonstration of reusable space technologies and orbital spaceight missions the X-37 project was launched in 1999, where in the rst
scenario the vehicle should be transported into an Earth orbit inside the
cargo bay of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. In 2004 the X-37 project was
transferred from NASA to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and a redesign took place for launch on an Atlas V rocket.
The Boeing company was the prime contractor of the X-37 vehicle. The
project included the development and manufacturing of two demonstrator
vehicles. One for the approach and landing part of the ight trajectory and
one for the deorbiting and re-entry part.
The rst orbital ight happened in 2010 and two others in 2011 and 2012.
Among the technologies, which are demonstrated, are improved thermal protection systems (hot structures, conformal reusable insulation, high temperature seals, etc.), avionics and an autonomous guidance, navigation and control
system. All ights were classied.
Some synthetic images of the X-37 vehicle, taken from [21] and [23], are
shown in Figs. 6.60 and 6.61.
6.5.1
The X-37 is 8.382 m (27.5 feet) long, has a wingspan of about 4.572 m (15
feet) and weighs about 6 tons. The shape of the X-37 vehicle is a 120 percent
scaled up version of the X-40 conguration, [23], which was also developed
and built by the Boeing company.
6.5.2
Aerodynamic Data of Steady and Unsteady

Motions
There was no access for the author to the aerodynamic data.
218
Fig. 6.59. Test envelopes of X-33, X-34 and X-37, [23]
Fig. 6.60. Synthetic views of the X-37 vehicle. Flight in orbit (left), atmospheric
ight during re-entry (right), [21].
219
Fig. 6.61. Synthetic views of the X-37 vehicle. X-37 in the cargo bay of the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter (left), ight in orbit with deployed solar generator (right), [21,
23].
220
6.6
X-38 Vehicle (USA-Europe)
The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

had envisaged in the 1990s to develop for operational missions in connection
with the International Space Station (ISS) a Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV),
replacing the Russian SOYUZ capsule and also, if necessary, the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter. In the case of illness of crew members or any other emergency, the CRV should be able to bring back to Earth the complete crew of
the ISS (at maximum seven astronauts). The essential point was that the
crew return could be carried out un-piloted, which means that the vehicle
was to operate automatically. For this mission a conguration on the basis
of a lifting body, viz. the X-24A shape [24], was selected and got the name
X-38.
The vehicle had to have the following features:
accurate and soft landing to allow for the transportation of injured crew
members,
load factor minimization,
sucient cross-range capability for reaching the selected landing site also
at adverse weather conditions.
The X-38 vehicle is not a RV-W in the strict sense. As a lifting body, it
glides after the de-orbit boost like a winged re-entry vehicle, unpowered along
a given trajectory down to a specied altitude and conducts then the nal
descent and landing by a steerable heavy load parafoil system, Fig. 6.62. The
parafoil is a must because the aerodynamic performance L/D of such a lifting
body in the subsonic ight regime is too low for an aero-assisted (winged)
terminal approach and landing .
To provide enough space for seven crew members, the X-24A shape was
scaled-up by a factor of 1.2 and the fuselage was redesigned at the leeward
side to increase the volume. The resulting shape, named X-38 Rev. 8.3, served
as a technology demonstrator for the prototype CRV.
A close cooperation between NASA, European industries, agencies and
research organizations (Dassault, EADS-Space, MAN, ESA, DLR, ONERA,
etc.) was arranged in particular for the establishment of the aerodynamic
data base. Various pictures of the wind tunnel campaign are shown in Fig.
6.63. Further some evaluations of numerical solutions of the Navier-Stokes
equations are plotted in Fig. 6.64.
Unfortunately, in 2002 NASA changed its strategy and aimed for a multipurpose vehicle, which could provide both the crew transport and crew
return capabilities, instead of the single purpose vehicle X-3818 . In June 2002
18
Single purpose vehicle means: the X-38 vehicle is transported in the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter bay into the Earth orbit and then docked at the ISS.
Multi purpose vehicle means: the X-38 is able to transport crew members to
and from the ISS, performing an autonomous ascent (independent of the SPACE
SHUTTLE Orbiter).
6.6 X-38 Vehicle (USA-Europe)
221
the X-38 project was cancelled. Up to now (2013) no follow-on project was
launched.
Nevertheless, the work on the aerodynamic data base was brought to a
reasonable end. Therefore, we are able to present in the following section
detailed aerodynamic data for the longitudinal and lateral motion as well as
some investigations of dynamic stability. All these data were received from
wind tunnel experiments and numerical solutions of either the Euler or the
Navier-Stokes equations.
Fig. 6.62. Drop test including parafoil landing of the X-38 vehicle, Rev. 8.3 with
docking port, [4]
Fig. 6.63. X-38 vehicle: Pictures from various wind tunnel campaigns. Wind tunnel
ow eld, [25] (left), model in the TMK tunnel of the DLR, Cologne (middle),
[26, 27], model in the S4 tunnel of ONERA, Modane, [28] (right).
6.6.1
In Fig. 6.65 we present three-dimensional views of the X-38 vehicle, Rev. 8.3
including the device for docking on the International Space Station (docking
222
Fig. 6.64. X-38 vehicle: Navier-Stokes solutions. Pressure distribution and skinfriction lines (M = 15, = 40 , bf = 20 ), side view (left), rear view including
body ap cavity (middle), [29]. Pressure distribution at the lower side with two
dierent body ap deections (bf = 20 and bf = 30 ) (right), [30].
port). The shape presented has a body ap deection of bf = 20 , which is

made visible in the rear view plot of the vehicle (right part of the gure). For
most of the experimental and numerical investigations for the preparation
of the aerodynamic data base the nominal body ap deection angle was
bf = 20 (see the following sections). Fig. 6.66 contains a side and a top
view with some measures and the denition of the nominal moment reference
point.
Fig. 6.65. 3D shape presentation of the X-38 vehicle, Rev.8.3 with the docking
port
6.6.2
Longitudinal Motion
As mentioned above, the X-38 vehicle is a lifting body, which does not strictly
belong to the class of winged re-entry vehicles. Classical winged re-entry
223
Fig. 6.66. Shape denition of the X-38 vehicle, Rev. 8.3, [31]
vehicles are able to conduct the landing by its own shape, which means that
their shape produces in the subsonic ight regime at the minimum a L/D
value of 4.5 to 5. When we look upon the subsonic aerodynamic performance
of the X-38 vehicle in Fig. 6.69, we nd a L/D of order 2, which is far below
the required value. This is the reason, why the nal descent and landing of the
X-38 vehicle is carried out with a steerable parafoil system, [32, 33]. Figs. 6.67
- 6.70 exhibit for subsonic, transonic and supersonic Mach numbers lift, drag
and pitching moment coecients as well as the lift-to-drag ratio L/D. Most
of the data are taken from the Aerodynamic Data Base (ADB) assembled
by Dassault Aviation, [34] and some come from numerical Euler solutions
performed by [35]. The large pitching moment coecients at small angles of
attack, Fig. 6.70, are due to the strong boat-tailing of the lower side of the
224
X-38 vehicle, see Fig. 6.66. Another observation of the aerodynamics of the X38 shape is that the drag coecient is substantially larger compared to other
RV-Ws, Fig. 6.68. The results of the Euler computations are consistent with
the ADB data except for the pitching moment coecients for M = 1.72,
where some deviations occur.
0.8
lift coefficient C
0.6
0.4
0.2
M=1.72 CFD
M=3.00 CFD
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.05
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=2.40
M=4.96
0.2
0.4
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
Fig. 6.67. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [34, 35]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
Supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers are considered in Figs. 6.71 to

6.74. These data were obtained mainly from wind tunnel investigations19, [28,
36, 37], and veried by some Navier-Stokes computations, [30]. For supersonic
Mach numbers the aerodynamic performance L/D is of order 1.4, which
diminishes to 1.3 for hypersonic Mach numbers. Further one can observe
that the aerodynamic coecients become asymptotically independent of the
Mach number above M 5. The data from the Navier-Stokes computations
with M = 10, 15, 17.5 at = 40 show excellent agreement with the wind
tunnel data.
In Fig. 6.75 the trim angle of attack extracted from the Figs. 6.70 and
6.74 is plotted. Three observations can be stated by a critical view at this
diagram:
19
The following wind tunnels were used: TMK of DLR Cologne, Germany, S3 and
S4 of ONERA Modane, France.
225
0.8
drag coefficient CD
0.7
0.6
0.5
M=1.72 CFD
M=3.00 CFD
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.05
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=2.40
M=4.96
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
20
angle of attack
30
40
Fig. 6.68. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [34, 35]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
rstly, there are obviously no trim angles of attack present for M = 0.9
and 0.95 for the conditions bf = 20 and xref = 0.57Lref , see Fig. 6.70,
secondly, the trim angles of attack in the Mach number range 1.6 M
5.5, taken from Figs. 6.70 and 6.74, dier somewhat from each other, but
the slope of the curves are very similar,
thirdly, the trim angle in the hypersonic ight regime approaches approximately 30 . Since the re-entry ight trajectory of the X-38 vehicle requires
an angle of attack of 40 ( in hypersonic ight) an adjustment of the
body ap deection bf and/or the center-of-gravity xref is necessary (see
Figs. 6.76, 6.77).
The inuence of the moment reference point on the pitching moment coecient for M = 9.92 (S4 wind tunnel data) is shown in Fig. 6.76. As expected
the pitching moment grows with increasing xref (for the denition of a positive pitching moment see Fig. 8.2.). This results in a trim angle increase from
trim 30 for xref = 57% to trim 37 for xref = 59%. Another eective
possibility for increasing the trim angle of attack consists in the reduction
of the body ap deection. Reducing the body ap deection bf from 20
to 10 changes the trim angle from trim 30 to 45 , Fig. 6.77. The
physics behind that is the reduction of the pressure at the windward side of
the body ap surface when bf is decreased. That leads to a front shift of the
226

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
M=1.72 CFD
M=3.00 CFD
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.05
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=2.40
M=4.96
0
0.5
1
10
20
30
40
angle of attack
Fig. 6.69. Lift-to-drag L/D as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [34, 35]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
0.1
M=1.72 CFD
M=3.00 CFD
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.05
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=2.40
M=4.96
0.05
0.05
10
20
angle of attack
30
40

for subsonic-transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [34, 35]. Body ap deection
bf = 20 . Moment reference point xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.09566 Lref .
227
center-of-pressure (or the line of the resultant aerodynamic force, see [10])
generating an increase of the pitching moment.
0.8
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
0.5
M=17.50 CFD
M=15.00 CFD
M=10.00 CFD
M=9.92 S4
M=5.47 S3
M=4.00 TMK
M=2.40 TMK
M=2.00 TMK
M=1.75 TMK
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack
35
40
45
Fig. 6.71. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for supersonic
and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 30, 36, 37]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
Lateral Motion
The side force coecients as well as the rolling and yawing moment coecients as function of the side slip angle are presented in Figs. 6.78 to
6.80. The data were taken from the wind tunnel investigations in the S4,
S3 and TMK wind tunnel facilities. The slope of the side force coecient
grows with decreasing Mach numbers. The rolling and yawing moment coecients are plotted in Figs. 6.79 and 6.80 for M = 9.92, with = 40 ,
M = 5.47, with = 40.5 and M = 4, 2.4, 2, 1.75 with = 20 .
Generally the rolling moment coecient has a negative slope indicating
roll motion damping, which increases for lower Mach numbers and growing
angles of attack at least above 10 , Fig. 6.81. The yawing moment has
always a positive slope, which indicates directional stability. This stability
increases for higher angles of attack and diminishes when the Mach number
goes up as Fig. 6.82 shows.
228

0.8
drag coefficient CD
0.7
0.6
0.5
M=17.50 CFD
M=15.00 CFD
M=10.00 CFD
M=9.92 S4
M=5.47 S3
M=4.00 TMK
M=2.40 TMK
M=2.00 TMK
M=1.75 TMK
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack
35
40
45
Fig. 6.72. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for supersonic
and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 30, 36, 37]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
2.5
M=17.50 CFD
M=15.00 CFD
M=10.00 CFD
M=9.92 S4
M=5.47 S3
M=4.00 TMK
M=2.40 TMK
M=2.00 TMK
M=1.75 TMK
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack
35
40
45
Fig. 6.73. Aerodynamic performance L/D as function of the angle of attack

for supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 30, 36, 37]. Body ap deection
bf = 20 .
229
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0
M=17.50 CFD
M=15.00 CFD
M=10.00 CFD
M=9.92 S4
M=5.47 S3
M=4.00 TMK
M=2.40 TMK
M=2.00 TMK
M=1.75 TMK
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
angle of attack

for supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 30, 36, 37]. Body ap deection
bf = 20 . Moment reference point xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.09566 Lref .
35
windtunnel
data base
trim
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
Mach number M
Fig. 6.75. Trim angle of attack. Evaluations of the data base values from Fig. 6.70
and wind tunnel values from Fig. 6.74. Moment reference point xref = 0.57 Lref ,
zref = 0.09566 Lref .
230

0.02
x = 57%
ref
xref = 58%
x = 59%
0.01
ref
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
angle of attack
Fig. 6.76. Inuence of the moment reference point variations (with zref =
0.09566 Lref = const) on the pitching moment coecient. Evaluation of S4 wind
tunnel data with M = 9.92, [28].
0.03
bf =10
=15
bf
=20
bf
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
angle of attack
Fig. 6.77. Inuence of the body ap deection on the pitching moment coecient.
Moment reference point xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.09566 Lref . S4 wind tunnel data
with M = 9.92, [28].

0.25
231
S4 windtunnel, Re=2.0E6, M = 9.92, =40
S3 windtunnel, Re=3.0E6, M = 5.47, =40,5
0.2
TMK windtunnel, M = 4.00, =20
side force coefficient CY1

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
15
10
5
0
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.78. Side force coecient CY 1 as function of the angle of yaw for supersonic
and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 36, 37]. Body ap deection bf = 20 .
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
15
10
5
0
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.79. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the angle of yaw for
supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 36, 37]. Body ap deection bf =
20 .
232

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
15
10
5
0
angle of yaw
10
Fig. 6.80. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the angle of yaw for
supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 36, 37]. Moment reference point
xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.09566 Lref . Body ap deection bf = 20 .
3
x 10
S4 windtunnel, M = 9.92, =40
S3 windtunnel, M = 5.47, =40,5
1.5
2.5
3
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.81. Rolling moment coecient per degree Cl as function of the angle
of attack for supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 36, 37]. Body ap
deection bf = 20 .
233
3.5
x 10
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.82. Yawing moment coecient per degree Cn as function of the angle
of attack for supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers, [28, 36, 37]. Moment
reference point xref = 0.57 Lref , zref = 0.09566 Lref . Body ap deection bf =
20 .
6.6.3
Experience shows that the dynamic behavior of re-entry vehicles can be critical in the vicinity of the transonic Mach number, which means the regime
between 0.8 M 1.2. For higher Mach numbers the dynamic derivatives
play only a minor role. Therefore we present for longitudinal motion in the
transonic ight regime the pitch damping derivative Cmq + Cm , Fig. 6.83.
The dotted curve was established by ve points, each generated by unsteady,
three-dimensional Navier-Stokes computations, [38, 39]. Since Cmq + Cm
is negative in the Mach number regime considered, dynamic motions of the
X-38 vehicle (e.g., pitch oscillations) will be damped.
234
experiment
CFD
0.3
Cmq + C
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Mach number
Fig. 6.83. Damping derivative of the longitudinal pitch motion Cmq + Cm . Data
source: [38, 39].
6.7 PHOENIX Demonstrator (Germany)
6.7
235
PHOENIX Demonstrator (Germany)
In the frame of the Future European Space Transportation Investigation

Programme (FESTIP), several Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) concepts
were designed and investigated with the goal of making access to space more
reliable and cost eective. The major objective of FESTIP was rstly to compare launcher concepts on an equal basis, and secondly to determine which
of these concepts become technically feasible with respect to the technologies
already available and the ones which would have to be developed in the near
term in Europe. Eight promising candidate concepts were selected representing the most signicant design philosophies as they are: the number of stages,
the types of propulsion system, the mode of take-o and landing, the vehicle
conguration and the ight mission, [12].
One of these concepts is the HOPPER vehicle, Fig. 6.84 (left), which was
foreseen to y along a suborbital trajectory, [40]. This means that this vehicle
does not reach the velocity necessary for moving into an Earth target orbit20 .
This also means, that the vehicle is not able to return to the launch base,
but has to y to another landing ground.
The main features of the system are the horizontal take-o (sled launch)
and landing capability and the reusability of most of the vehicle parts. After
release from the sled the HOPPER vehicle is powered by three Vulcain 2
engines21 .
To demonstrate the low speed and landing properties of the vehicle shape
a 1:7 down-scaled ight demonstrator, called PHOENIX, was developed and
manufactured within the framework of the German ASTRA22 program, Fig.
6.84 (right). In order to guarantee that the PHOENIX demonstrator ights
are representative of the full scale HOPPER ights, the aerodynamic performance, the center-of-gravity position, the ight quality and the landing
speed (71 m/s) are the same for both vehicles, [41, 42].
The aerodynamic data base of the PHOENIX vehicle was compiled from
the experimental data coming from six wind tunnels23 and from numerical
simulations (Euler- and Navier-Stokes computations).
Fig. 6.85 presents pictures of a ow eld and of models in two of these wind
tunnels. Solutions of numerical simulations, in particular when viscous eects
come into play (Navier-Stokes solutions), oer the potential to reveal specic
ow phenomena from the computed three-dimensional ow elds. Some ex20
21
22
23
For example, a circular Earth target orbit of an altitude of H = 400 km requires

a velocity of the space vehicle of 7671.74 m/s, [33]
The Vulcain 2 rocket motor is the main engine of the advanced version of the
European ARIANE V rocket.
ASTRA Ausgew
ahlte Systeme und Technologien f
ur zuk
unftige
Raumtransportsystem-Anwendungen (Selected Systems and Technologies
for Future Space Transportation Applications).
DLRs NWB wind tunnel (subsonic), DLRs TWG wind tunnel (subsonictransonic-low supersonic), NLRs HST wind tunnel (subsonic-transonic-low supersonic), NLRs SST wind tunnel (supersonic), DNWs LLF wind tunnel (low
subsonic), Technical University of Aachens TH2 shock tunnel (hypersonic).
236
amples are shown in Fig. 6.86, where wing tip and trailing vortices (left
gure), the radiation-adiabatic wall temperature distribution, [43], (middle
gure) and skin-friction lines (right gure) are plotted.
The demonstration of the landing capacity of the PHOENIX vehicle was
conducted at the North European Aerospace Test Range (NEAT) in Vidsel
(North Sweden). For the test ight the vehicle was dropped from a helicopter
at an altitude of 2.4 km and a distance to the runway of approximately 6 km.
The subsequent free ight had included an accelerating dive to merge with a
steep nal approach path representative for an RLV, followed by a long are
manoeuvre and a touch down on the runway, Fig.6.87, [42].
Fig. 6.84. 3-D model of the HOPPER shape including three rockets of Vulcain 2
type (left), 3-D model of the PHOENIX demonstrator (right), [44, 45]
Fig. 6.85. Test of the PHOENIX model in the shock tunnel TH2 of the Technical
University of Aachen. Test conditions: M = 6.6, = 35 , T0 = 7400 K, bf = 20
(left), [46]. PHOENIX model in the HST wind tunnel of NLR, The Netherlands,
(middle). PHOENIX in 1:1 scale in the Large Low Speed Facility (LLF) of DNW,
Germany/The Netherlands (right), [41, 42].
237
Fig. 6.86. Navier-Stokes solutions for the PHOENIX conguration, turbulent ow.
Wing tip and trailing vortices M = 0.6, = 12 (left), radiation-adiabatic wall
temperature distribution at the windward side M = 11.1, = 19.6 , H = 55.4 km
(middle), skin-friction lines, solution with real gas assumption M = 15, = 25 ,
H = 54.5 km (right), [44, 47].
Fig. 6.87. PHOENIX demonstrator: Test of subsonic free ight (helicopter drop
test) and automatic landing capability in Vidsel, Sweden in May 2004, [41, 42]
238
6.7.1
Reusable launch vehicles have to meet contradicting demands during their

space missions. Their missions comprise all the operation phases consisting of launch, ascent and nal boost for arriving the target orbit as well as
de-orbiting, re-entry, hypersonic ight and terminal approach and landing.
Therefore such vehicles are characterized by compact shapes with small-span
wings and aerodynamic controls.
The shape of the PHOENIX demonstrator, as a 1:7 down-scaled HOPPER
conguration, has an overall length of 6.90 m, a span of 3.84 m and an overall
height of 2.56 m, Figs. 6.88 - 6.90.
Fig. 6.88. Engineering drawing of the PHOENIX shape: side view [44]
6.7.2
As already mentioned the aerodynamic data base was established via experiments in several wind tunnels as well as numerical simulations (3D Euler and
Navier-Stokes computations). The numerical simulations included modern
turbulence models24 and real gas eects, where necessary, [44, 47].
Longitudinal Motion
The lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for subsonictransonic and transonic-supersonic Mach numbers is presented in Figs. 6.91
and 6.92. In the subsonic-transonic regime the slope of the lift coecient with
respect to the angle of attack CL / is slightly increasing with increasing
24
Either fully turbulent ow or ow with xed laminar-turbulent transition can be

handled.
239
Fig. 6.89. Engineering drawing of the PHOENIX shape (half model): top view
[44]
Fig. 6.90. Engineering drawing of the PHOENIX shape (half model): front view
[44]
Mach number, whereas the linear behavior breaks down for lower angles of
attack when the Mach number rises. The highest CL / value is given for
M = 1.1 which is then lowered continuously with rising Mach number.
Further, in the transonic-supersonic regime, the break down of the linear
behavior of CL is shifted to higher angles of attack, Fig. 6.92.
The drag coecient CD for two Mach number regimes (subsonic-transonic,
transonic-supersonic) is presented in Figs. 6.93 and 6.94. As expected, CD
increases with increasing Mach number from the subsonic regime to a
240
maximum value around M 1. Then it decreases again in the supersonic

domain. Notable is the strong jump of the CD values the drag divergence
for the Mach number passage M = 0.95 = M = 1.1 for moderate angles
of attack.
For a save landing of unpowered space vehicles at minimum an aerodynamic performance L/D, according to experience, of approximately 5 is necessary. As Fig. 6.95 exhibits PHOENIX possess a value of L/DM =0.2 5.5,
which is sucient for an autonomous landing. Beyond M 1 the maximum
lift-to-drag value reduces to L/Dmax 2 for all Mach numbers considered,
Fig. 6.96.
0.8
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.95
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
The pitching moment plots reveal static stability, for the selected centerof-gravity position xref = 0.68 Lref 25 , for all the subsonic-transonic Mach
numbers of Fig. 6.97, and for the Mach numbers M = 1.1, 1.33, 1.72 of the
transonic-supersonic regime, Fig. 6.98. In the true transonic regime (0.8
M 1.33) the slope Cm / is highest, indicating a distinct static stability,
which breaks down for angles of attack 15 . Low subsonic Mach numbers
hold marginal stability, while for increasing supersonic Mach numbers the
25
The lay-out of the PHOENIX demonstrator was strongly inuenced by the hardware of the ight test instrumentations and the other experimental equipment.
Thereby the center-of-gravity position of the real ight vehicle was shifted to
xref = 0.70 Lref with the consequence that the vehicle became statically unstable in the subsonic regime, [42].
241
0.8
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
0.5
M=1.10
M=1.33
M=1.72
M=2.31
M=3.96
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
0.45
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.95
0.4
drag coefficient C
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
242
0.45
0.4
lift coefficient C
0.35
0.3
M=1.10
M=1.33
M=1.72
M=2.31
M=3.96
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.95
1
2
3
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
243
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
M=1.10
M=1.33
M=1.72
M=2.31
M=3.96
1
2
3
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 6.96. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for transonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [48]
vehicle becomes statically unstable. The vehicle can be trimmed (when all
aerodynamic control surfaces are in neutral positions) only for M = 0.95
and 1.1 for small angles of attack.
The investigation of the higher Mach number (supersonic-hypersonic)
regime was exclusively performed by numerical simulation tools (CFD), Figs.
6.99 - 6.102. Lift and drag coecients seem to decrease with increasing Mach
number and exhibit approximately the well known Mach number independency in the hypersonic regime, Figs. 6.99 and 6.100.
The lift-to-drag ratio L/D does not show a strict hypersonic Mach number
independency, but reveals a continuous reduction of L/D with rising Mach
number, so that for example for M = 10 a L/Dmax 2. and for M = 15
a L/Dmax 1.75 is given, Fig. 6.101.
Finally, the pitching moment coecient Cm behaves in the supersonichypersonic regime as expected. The trend of Fig. 6.98 is carried forward,
namely that the vehicle with increasing Mach number becomes more and
more statically unstable, Fig. 6.102. This is true despite the fact that the
numerical simulations for the single trajectory points of M = 11.1, =
19.6 and M = 14.4, = 31.3 do not conrm this picture.
We describe now by which measures longitudinal static stability and trim
of a space vehicle can be achieved if, for example, the pitching moment coecient behaves like that of the PHOENIX shape at M = 3.96, Fig. 6.98.
For this reason we demonstrate the eects of body ap deection and forward shift of the center-of-gravity on static stability and trim. In general a
244
positive (downwards) deected body ap (bf > 0) provokes a nose-down effect, which results in a diminishment of the pitching moment coecient. On
the other hand a negative body ap deection (bf < 0) produces an additional nose-up moment as can be seen in Fig. 6.103. Usually for re-entry vehicles ying classical entry trajectories the angle of attack regime for M 4
is given by 20 30 , [10]. By considering Fig. 6.103 it seems that
only for 30 and a body ap deection of bf = +10 a trimmed and
statically stable ight situation exists.
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
5
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.95
0
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
subsonic-transonic Mach numbers; moment reference point xref = 0.68 Lref , [48]
The other possibility for attaining static stability consists in a forward

shift of the center-of-gravity, Fig. 6.104. As a basic principle static stability
is enforced by moving the center-of-gravity forward. In the case considered
here, the additional nose-down moment prevents trim for bf = +10 , but
allows statically stable and trimmed ight for a body ap deection of bf =
10 and 28 . This, however, is possible only at vehicle attitudes and
Mach numbers, where the upward deected trim surface does not lie in the
hypersonic shadow.
245
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
5
M=1.10
M=1.33
M=1.72
M=2.31
M=3.96
0
10
15
angle of attack
20
25

for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers; moment reference point xref = 0.68 Lref ,
[48]
0.8
0.7
lift coefficient CL
0.6
0.5
M=3.2
M=4.2
M=9.6
M=10.0
M=11.1
M=14.4
M=15.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
Fig. 6.99. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers. Data taken from Navier-Stokes solutions, [44, 47].
246
0.4
0.35
drag coefficient C
0.3
0.25
M=3.2
M=4.2
M=9.6
M=10.0
M=11.1
M=14.4
M=15.0
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
Fig. 6.100. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers. Data taken from Navier-Stokes solutions, [44, 47].
2.5
M=3.2
M=4.2
M=9.6
M=10.0
M=11.1
M=14.4
M=15.0
1.5
1
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers. Data taken from Navier-Stokes solutions,
[44, 47].
247
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
M=3.2
M=4.2
M=9.6
M=10.0
M=11.1
M=14.4
M=15.0
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
5
10
25
20
15
angle of attack
30
35

for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.68Lref .
Data taken from Navier-Stokes solutions, [44, 47].
Lateral Motion
The lateral motion of a ight vehicle is dened by the side force coecient
CY 26 , the rolling moment coecient Cl and the yawing moment coecient
Cn . All these coecients as function of the yaw angle are presented in
the Figs. 6.105 to 6.110. Generally, the side slip derivative of the side force
CY / is small and therefore can often be neglected in contrast to the
yawing and rolling moment derivatives Cn / and Cl /.
The side force coecients plotted in Figs. 6.105 and 6.106 for the subsonictransonic and transonic-supersonic regimes exhibit a linear behavior with a
more or less constant slope with regard to the slide slip angle , except for
M = 3.96 where the slope decreases somewhat.
Directional stability requires a positive Cn /, which means that with increasing side slip angle the capability to restore the space vehicle into the
neutral position (wind position, 0 ) has to grow. A view on Fig. 6.107
shows that in the subsonic-transonic regime this is only marginally the case.
Further, for the transonic-supersonic regime (Fig. 6.108), we see that with increasing Mach number the vehicle becomes more and more directionally unstable.
26
The side force coecient CY is usually dened in body xed coordinates, see eq.
(8.2), but can be transformed to aerodynamic coordinates by CY = CD sin +
CY a cos , see also Fig. 8.1.
248
Since the character of the rolling moment is quite distinct to that of the
yawing moment ( for the rolling moment no restoring eect exists ), we
can assert that the rolling moment derivative Cl / is primarily negative
in the whole Mach number regime considered here, Figs. 6.109 and 6.110.
This provokes a damping of the roll motion. The principal contributions to
the rolling moment derivative Cl / in ight with side slip angle > 0
come from the dihedral angle of the wing, the sweep angle of the wing and
the vertical n27 . All these eects produce negative (damping) contributions
to the rolling moment of the PHOENIX demonstrator. Therefore we are not
surprised that PHOENIX shows the above described behavior for the rolling
moment derivative, Figs. 6.109 and 6.110.
Fig. 6.103. Pitching moment behavior of the PHOENIX shape. Variation of the
body ap angle bf . Moment reference point xref = 0.680 Lref , M = 3.96. Data
taken from [48].
6.7.3

27
Of course, there are other eects present inuencing the rolling moment, like the
ones of the fuselage and the aspect ratio of the wing, but they are in general of
minor importance, [49, 50].
249
Fig. 6.104. Pitching moment behavior of the PHOENIX shape. Variation of the
body ap angle bf and change of the moment reference point to xref = 0.655 Lref ,
M = 3.96. Data taken from [48].
M=0.20, = 5
M=0.50, = 10
M=0.80, = 10
M=0.95, = 10
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
15
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.105. Side force coecient CY dened in body xed coordinates as function
of the yaw angle for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [48]
250
M=1.10, = 5
M=1.33, = 0
M=1.72, = 0
M=2.31, = 0
M=3.96, = 0
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
15
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.106. Side force coecient CY dened in body xed coordinates as function
of the yaw angle for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [48]
0.03
M=0.20, = 5
M=0.50, = 10
M=0.80, = 10
M=0.95, = 10
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
15
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.107. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the yaw angle for
subsonic-transonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.680 Lref , [48].
251
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
15
M=1.10, =10
M=1.33, =0
M=1.72, =0
M=2.31, =0
M=3.96, =0
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
transonic-supersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.680 Lref ,
[48].
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
15
M=0.20, = 5
M=0.50, = 10
M=0.80, = 10
M=0.95, = 10
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.109. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the yaw angle for
subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [48].
252
0.04
M=1.10, =10
M=1.33, =0
M=1.72, =0
M=2.31, =0
M=3.96, =0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
15
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.110. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the yaw angle for
transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [48].
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
6.8
253
HOPE-X (Japan)
In the 1980s, Japan joined the community of nations, like the USA and
the Soviet Union, or the group of nations, like the European Community,
striving for an autonomous access to space. Besides rocket activities, Japan
developed a conceptual re-entry vehicle called HOPE, which was planned for
the payload transportation to and from the International Space Station ISS.
Due to budget constraints in the 1990s and the run-down and cancellation
of the development of most of the manned space transportation systems at
that time in the countries mentioned above, for example HERMES in Europe,
BURAN in the Soviet Union and X33, X34 and X38 in the USA, this program
was re-oriented in the sense to develop a smaller, lighter and cheaper vehicle
called HOPE-X. That was then cancelled in 2003. The planned mission of
HOPE-X was to transport payloads to and from the ISS in an unmanned
mode, Fig. 6.111.
Fig. 6.111. HOPE-X shape: synthetic image (left), surface pressure distribution
for M = 3 and = 35 (right), [51] to [53]. Note that the shape of the synthetic
image diers somewhat from that of the nominal shape.
6.8.1
The HOPE-X shape has a double delta type wing, similar to that of the
SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. For the control of the lateral motion the designers installed winglets at the wing tips comparable to the ones of the
HERMES and the X-38 vehicle. A three-views presentation of the HOPE-X
shape is given in the Figs. 6.112 to 6.114. These gures, showing a panelisation of the shape, were produced in the frame of a cooperation between
Germanys aerospace company Dasa (later EADS) and Japans space agency
NASDA (later JAXA). Four positions of the body ap were aerodynamically
investigated. These positions can be seen best in Fig. 6.113.
254
Fig. 6.112. HOPE-X shape: front view generated by quadrilateral panels, [53]
Fig. 6.113. HOPE-X shape: side view including four body ap positions generated
by quadrilateral panels, [53]
Fig. 6.114. HOPE-X shape: top view generated by quadrilateral panels, [53]
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
6.8.2
255
Longitudinal Motion
All the data for the longitudinal motion, taken from [53], are given for
the Mach number range 0.2 M 3.5 and the angle of attack range
5 30 .28
The behavior of the lift coecient CL in the subsonic-transonic regime
shows only minor variations in slope, but deviates for the Mach numbers
M = 0.8 and 0.9 somewhat from linearity, Fig. 6.115. This picture changes
in the transonic-supersonic regime, where cumulatively a linear behavior can
be observed, and where the slope decreases monotonically with increasing
Mach number, Fig. 6.116.
The drag coecient CD in the subsonic-transonic regime increases in
general with increasing Mach number, but shows for low angles of attack
(2 5 ) a regime where CD seems to be approximately constant with
respect to the Mach number, Fig. 6.117. Beyond Mach number one, where
one expects to have the highest drag, the CD values continuously decrease
with growing Mach number, Fig. 6.118.
The aerodynamic performance L/D is highest for the lowest Mach number (M = 0.2) and has a value there of approximately 5.8 at an angle of
attack 11 . With increasing Mach number the peak values (L/Dmax)
shift towards lower values, while the magnitude of L/Dmax decreases only
slightly, Fig. 6.119. When the Mach number crosses one, the L/Dmax values
diminish strongly to 3 (M = 1.1) and further to 2 (M = 3.5), Fig.
6.120.
The pitching moment coecient indicates in the subsonic-transonic regime
for M = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 a slight instability, which becomes stronger for
M = 0.8 and 0.9, in particular for 12 , Fig. 6.121. The vehicle seems
to be trimmable in this Mach number range, except for M = 0.2. On the
other hand in the transonic-supersonic regime static stability is in particular
preserved for M = 1.1 and 1.2, whereby with increasing Mach number the
vehicle loses its static stability. Further, trim is given for M = 1.1 and 1.2,
but only for slightly negative angles of attack, at which the vehicle does not
operate, Fig. 6.122.
Lateral Motion
The Figs. 6.123 - 6.128 show the coecients per degree of yaw angle for the
side force as well as the rolling and yawing moments. The slope of the rolling
moment (Cl /) is negative for most of the Mach numbers in the subsonictransonic regime in the whole angle of attack range indicating damping of
roll motion with the only exception that Cl / becomes positive for M =
28
Note: For some of the curves the data are only given for 25 and in two
Mach number cases the data start with = 0 , and not with = 5 .
Data for higher Mach numbers were not made available to the author.
256
1.2
lift coefficient CL
1
0.8
0.6
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
10
20
angle of attack
30
1.2
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
lift coefficient CL
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
10
20
angle of attack
30
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
257
drag coefficient C
0.8
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
drag coefficient C
0.8
0.6
0.4
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0.2
0
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
258
lifttodrag ratio
4
2
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0
2
4
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
lifttodrag ratio
4
2
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0
2
4
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [51]
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
259
0.15
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
20
angle of attack
30

for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [51]
0.15
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
20
angle of attack
30

for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [51]
260
0.9 and 20 , Fig. 6.125. In the transonic-supersonic regime the general

trend is that with increasing Mach number the Cl / values changes from
negative to positive over the whole angle of attack range, which means that
with increasing Mach number the roll motion is less damped or will even be
amplied, Fig. 6.126.
As is well known, directional stability requires yawing moments with positive slopes (Cn / > 0). In most of the Mach number and angle of attack
regimes the HOPE-X vehicle has negative Cn / values indicating directional instability. A possible reason for that could be the ineective winglets.
Only for the Mach numbers M = 1.1 and 1.2 a small angle of attack band
exists with positive Cn / values, Figs. 6.127 - 6.128.
0.03
side force per degree of yaw angle C
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 6.123. Side force coecient per degree of the yaw angle (CY /) as
function of the angle of attack for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [51]
6.8.3
Data of investigations of dynamic stability are not available.
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0.03
side force per degree of yaw angle CY
261
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
rolling moment per degree of yaw angle Cl
Fig. 6.124. Side force coecient per degree of the yaw angle (CY /) as
function of the angle of attack for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [51]
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
5
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.125. Rolling moment coecient per degree of the yaw angle (Cl /)
as function of the angle of attack for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [51]
rolling moment per degree of yaw angle C
262
0.02
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
yawing moment per degree of yaw angle Cn
Fig. 6.126. Rolling moment coecient per degree of yaw angle (Cl /) as
function of the angle of attack for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [51]
0.01
M=0.2
M=0.4
M=0.6
M=0.8
M=0.9
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.127. Yawing moment coecient per degree of the yaw angle (Cn /)
as function of the angle of attack for subsonic-transonic Mach numbers, [51]
yawing moment per degree of yaw angle Cn
6.8 HOPE-X (Japan)
263
0.01
0.005
0.005
M=1.1
M=1.2
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=3.5
0.01
0.015
0.02
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.128. Yawing moment coecient per degree of the yaw angle (Cn /)
as function of the angle of attack for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [51]
264
6.9
Facetted DS6 Conguration (Germany)
Today we have the situation, that there is no real industrial project, by which
the SPACE SHUTTLE system could be replaced29 , neither by conventional
nor by advanced systems and technologies.
Therefore some research institutes for aeronautics and space applications
use the time to reect about approaches for new shape designs of space vehicles, in particular with respect to reduce the costs for payload transportation.
One of these ideas is to dene vehicle shapes with facetted surfaces, generating sharp edged contours, by the German Aerospace Center DLR. In this
way the thermal protection system would become much simpler and cheaper,
than for example for the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, where almost all the
TPS tiles were individual items.
Of course, during re-entry, where ight Mach numbers up to 30 occurs,
thermal loads are exceptional high. The surface radiation cooling, [43], is
eective only at conguration parts with large curvature radii. That is one of
the reasons that conventional re-entry vehicles have blunt noses, like capsules,
orbiters, etc.. With the advent of modern Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC)
materials, like C/C-SiC, which can be applied as hot structures, keeping their
mechanical properties also at very high temperatures, large bluntness in the
former sense may not be longer a necessary feature of re-entry vehicles.
6.9.1
The DLR launched a program named SHEFEX (SHarp Edge Flight EXperiment), where rst a non-winged conguration (Fig. 6.129), and second
a winged conguration (Fig. 6.130), both with facetted surfaces and sharp
edges were investigated with numerical simulation methods, by wind tunnel tests and in free-ight experiments. The main goal was to analyze the
thermal loads (heat transfer rates and surface temperatures) in particular
along the sharp edges, the aerodynamic performance L/D (longitudinal and
lateral ight capacity), and to obtain data from the free-ight experiments
for the validation of the numerical prediction methods. The rst free-ight,
where the non-winged shape was transported sub-orbital on top of a sounding rocket, named SHEFEX I, took place in Oct. 2005, [54] - [56]. Fig. 6.131
shows the re-entry conguration of SHEFEX I. The second free-ight, SHEFEX II, transporting the winged shape to space, took place on June 2012,
Fig. 6.132.
With the experience gained with the facetted congurations (SHEFEX I
and SHEFEX II) and the waverider concept the DLR has designed a space
vehicle shape with high aerodynamic performance L/D in the hypersonic
ight regime. The reason for this is to improve the operational capacity, which
means lower g-loads, higher longitudinal and lateral ight capability, lower
29
This is valid at least for the time-period 2010 - 2015.
6.9 Facetted DS6 Conguration (Germany)
265
Fig. 6.129. Facetted congurations: SHEFEX I, non-winged shape without aerodynamic control surfaces; design by the DLR. Various views at the shape, [54, 55]
Fig. 6.130. Facetted congurations: SHEFEX II, winged shape with aerodynamic
control surfaces; design by the DLR, [56]. Space vehicle on top of the booster rocket,
the launch conguration (left), space vehicle (right).
Fig. 6.131. SHEFEX I: Re-entry conguration of the non-winged SHEFEX I

experiment, [55]
266
Fig. 6.132. SHEFEX II: Launch conguration with the winged SHEFEX II shape,
[56]
peak heat transfer rates, etc., as well as the comfort for the crew members if
the vehicle is manned [57] - [59].
The outcome is the DS6 shape, Fig. 6.133, with a L/D higher than 3 in the
hypersonic ight regime for a body ap deection bf = 0 . For this shape
in the following section aerodynamic data are presented and discussed.
Fig. 6.133. Facetted DS6 conguration: winged shape with aerodynamic trim and
control surfaces; design by German Aerospace Center DLR, [57, 58]
6.9 Facetted DS6 Conguration (Germany)
6.9.2
267
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic performance L/D as function of angle of attack for
M = 8 is shown in Fig. 6.134. For the neutral body ap deection (bf = 0 )
L/D is highest (around 12 ). The positive body ap deection bf = 20
(downward) reduces strongly the aerodynamic performance L/D obviously
due to the drag increase, whereas the moderate L/D reduction for the negative body ap deection bf = 20 is due to the degradation in lift. A
draw back of this conguration is apparently the longitudinal static instability which cannot be repaired. On the other hand the vehicle is trimmable for
reasonable body ap deections and angles of attack, Fig. 6.135.
Fig. 6.136 exhibits L/D values for the Mach number range 4 M 25.
Since the body ap deection was bf = 10 , the maximum L/D value does
not exceed the value of 3, [57, 59].
Fig. 6.134. Facetted DS6 conguration: the lift-to-drag ratio as function of the
angle of attack for M = 8 and various body ap deection angles, [57].
Lateral Motion
Investigations regarding the lateral motion were not reported.
6.9.3
Data of investigations of dynamic stability are not available.
268
Fig. 6.135. Facetted DS6 conguration: pitching moment coecient Cm as function of the angle of attack for M = 8 and various body ap deection angles,
[57].
Fig. 6.136. Facetted DS6 conguration: lift-to-drag ratio as function of the angle
of attack in the hypersonic ight regime. Body ap deection bf = 10 , [57, 59].
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
6.10
269
PRORA (Italy)
Italy has launched in 2000 the Aerospace Research Program PRORA with
the goal to improve the technology basis and the system cognitions about the
transportation of space vehicles into Earths orbits. This was done due to the
fact that Italys space agency CIRA had the impression that their experience
in space applications were not evident enough for taking part in advanced
European and international space programs.
In the frame of this program the development of a ight demonstrator
called Unmanned Space Vehicle (USV) was planned. With this ight vehicle
the following tasks were to be performed:
atmospheric re-entry,
sustained hypersonic ight,
reusability.
Therefore the planned USV ight modes were:
a dropped transonic ight,

a suborbital re-entry ight,
a sustained hypersonic ight,
an orbital re-entry ight.
For all these ights the USV was to be brought to an appropriate altitude
by a balloon, then released or dropped from this balloon and powered for the
re-entry and hypersonic ight cases by a solid rocket booster, [60]. The nal
landing was to be conducted by a parachute system either at sea or on ground.
Fig. 6.137 shows the USV vehicle ready for the transonic demonstrator ight.
Besides the demonstration of the system aspects of the above listed ights,
technologies, like materials for advanced thermal protection systems, ight
control system, air data system, aerodynamic shape design, etc., were also
aspects of investigations.
Fig. 6.137. CIRAs PRORA-USV vehicle fabricated for the transonic ight
demonstration, [61]
270
6.10.1
In order to minimize the congurational risks a conventual shape was selected

for the USV30 . It consists of a fuselage with a compact cross section, which
has a blunted nose, and a double delta wing positioned rearward, with sweep
angles of 45 and 76 degrees. The wing trailing edge has a forward sweep angle
of 6 degrees. Further for roll stability reasons the wing has a dihedral angle
of 5 degrees. The overall length is L = 8 m and the wingspan b = 3.56 m,
[62]. As Fig. 6.138 exhibits, the USV shape has some volitional similarities
to NASAs X-34 vehicle, which for its part was similar to the SHUTTLE
Orbiter. This conguration was used for the transonic ight test, which has
taken place in Feb. 2007. After an extended evaluation phase of the rst
transonic ight, the planing of the next demonstration ight began in 2013,
[63].
For an earlier version of the USV shape, dened in [64, 65], we also present
for comparison reasons some aerodynamic coecients. The congurational
characteristics of this shape were: overall length L = 7 m, wingspan B = 3.8
m, sweep angles of the double delta wing 45 and 80 degrees.
6.10.2
The aerodynamic data for the nominal shape covered the Mach number range,
which was to be reached during the transonic ight demonstration tests,
namely 0.7 M 2. The rst of these ight tests took place in Feb. 2007,
[61]. The aerodynamic data stem mainly from wind tunnel tests. Numerical
simulations were also conducted in particular for validation reasons and extrapolation to ight conditions. It should be noted that the drag coecient,
presented below, does not include the base drag, since this drag was dicult
to determine from wind tunnel tests due to the strong inuence of the model
sting on the base ow, [62].
The aerodynamic data for the earlier shape are taken from [65]. This data
come from 3-D Euler solutions, where the ns, the base ow and the viscous
part of the ow were not included. Thus the data have a preliminary status.
The eects of the base ow and the viscosity on the aerodynamic coecients
were taken into account by simple semi-empirical formulas often.
The aerodynamic coecients for the nominal shape and the earlier shape
were normalized with dierent values, [62, 65], see Tab. 6.4.
In Fig. 6.139 a Schlieren photograph of the USV model during a wind
tunnel test with M = 1.2, = 10 (left) and the wind tunnel model itself
(right) are shown, [62, 66]. Surface pressure distributions evaluated from an
Euler solution for the transonic ow condition M = 1.035, = 6.405 ,
with a negative elevon deection of E = 9.87 (upward) are shown in
30
We call the shape, which was used for the transonic demonstrator test, the nominal shape.
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
271
Fig. 6.138. Sketch of the PRORA-USV vehicle (earlier shape) with top, side,
front and 3-D view, [62]. The vehicle has an overall reference length of 8 m, and a
wingspan of 3.8 m.
Fig. 6.140 (left), [61, 62]. The right part of this gure exhibits the vortex
formations along the wing leading edge, the wing tip and the fuselage as they
were predicted by a Navier-Stokes simulation of the ow eld with M =
0.70, = 10 , Re = 6.5 106 , [67, 68]
272
Fig. 6.139. PRORA-USV vehicle: Schlieren photograph in the windtunnel for

M = 1.2, = 10 (left), wind tunnel model (right), [62, 66].
Fig. 6.140. PRORA-USV vehicle: Surface pressure distribution of an Euler solution with M = 1.035, = 6.405 , E = 9.87 (left), Navier-Stokes solution with
M = 0.70, = 10 , Re = 6.5 106 showing the vortex formation by streamlines
(right), [61, 62, 67, 68].
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
273
Table 6.4. Reference values for the nominal shape, [62] and the earlier shape, [65]
nominal shape
earlier shape
reference length
1.05 m
8m
reference area
3.60 m2
11.5 m2
reference span
3.56 m
3.8 m
Longitudinal Motion
The lift coecient, presented in Fig. 6.141, exhibits the well known behavior
for RV-Ws of USV-type, namely an increasing lift slope CL / with growing Mach number until the transonic Mach number M = 1.05 is reached,
followed by a decreasing lift slope for increasing supersonic Mach numbers.
For the transonic Mach numbers (M = 0.7, 0.94, 1.05, 1.2) the linearity of
CL breaks around 12 , obviously due to the decay of the wing vortex. For
supersonic Mach numbers (M = 1.52, 2) CL linearity is retained.
We note again that the drag coecient CD does not contain the base drag,
which is explained in more detail below. The usual behavior of the drag can
be observed with an overall maximum near M 1, Fig. 6.142.
In order to show the general characteristics of the aerodynamic performance of the nominal USV vehicle we have drawn exemplarily for M =
0.7, 1.05, 2 the lift-to-drag ratio L/D, despite the fact, that the drag coecient has not been included the base drag, Fig. 6.143.
The base drag is mainly driven by the pressure coecient cp, base with

pbase
(pbase p )
2
cp, base =
=
1 .
(6.1)
2
2
0.5 v
M
p
cp, base is zero for p base = p and also for M , which is the Newton
limit for hypersonic ows. When cp, base 0, no contribution to the total
drag is present. For cp, base > 0 the total drag is reduced and in the case
that cp, base < 0 the total drag increases. Since the ow expands around the
base of the USV vehicle, cp, base will probably be negative, which means that
the total drag increases and L/D decreases. Therefore the L/D values of Fig.
6.143 are certainly too high. The realistic L/D magnitudes are without doubt
closer to the ones of Fig. 6.145 for the earlier USV shape.
The pitching moment diagram, Fig. 6.144, shows that the vehicle behaves
statically stable throughout the considered Mach number range for angles
of attack 15 , except for M = 2. The general trend that the longitudinal static stability is largest around M 1 for such kind of vehicles is
274
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
275
conrmed. Trim seems to be achievable for angles of attack around 0 for the
Mach numbers M = 0.94, 1.05, 1.2, 1.52. On the other hand owing to the
ight trajectory trim should be feasible in this Mach number regime for angles of attack around 10 . Therefore the pitching moment curves have to be
lifted up. An increasing of the pitching moment coecient, which means to
aim for a positive increment (pitch-up), can be achieved either by a negative
elevon deection (E < 0) and/or by a rearward shift of the center-of-gravity.
7
M=0.70
M=1.05
M=2.0
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
5
5
10
angle of attack
15
20
Fig. 6.143. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for three
sample Mach numbers, [62]. The drag coecient does not contain the base drag.
Fig. 6.145 shows the aerodynamic coecients in short for the earlier USV
vehicle. Note the dierent normalization quantities (see Table 6.4). As expected the aerodynamic characteristics are very similar for the nominal and
the earlier shape.
Lateral Motion
The side force coecient CY plotted against the side slip angle , Fig.
6.146, behaves primarily linear (CY / const.) and has its maximum
slope for M = 1.05. Of course, there exists a strong - dependency of the
lateral aerodynamic coecients at high angles of attack, when the ns get
into the shadow of the fuselage.
The rolling moment coecient has a negative slope (Cl / < 0), which
indicates a damping of the rolling motion, hence roll stability, Fig. 6.147. From
276

for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [62]. Moment reference point is located at
68.5% of the body length L = 8 m.
the six Mach numbers plotted in the diagram the three transonic ones exhibits
some deviations from linearity, whereas the other three (M = 0.7, 1.52, 2)
are strictly linear. The largest slope can be observed for M = 1.05.
First measurements of the yawing moment have shown that there exists
only a marginal directional stability. To improve this ventral ns were added
to the conguration and mounted at the lower side (windward side) of the
shape (see in Fig. 6.138 the lower left front view picture). Indeed, these aerodynamic stabilization surfaces have caused directional stability (Cn / > 0)
for Mach numbers up to M = 1.2, Fig. 6.148. For higher supersonic Mach
numbers the vehicle tends to become directionally unstable.
6.10.3
Data from investigations of dynamic stability are not available.
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
277
drag coefficient C
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
angle of attack
2
1
0
1
10
angle of attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.1
20
0.2
10
angle of attack
20
10
angle of attack
20
20
lift coefficient C
0.8
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
M=0.3
M=0.5
M=0.8
M=0.95
M=1.1
M=1.25
M=2.0
M=3.0
M=5.0
M=7.0
10
20
Fig. 6.145. Longitudinal aerodynamic database as function of the angle of attack

for the earlier version of the USV shape, [65]
278
Fig. 6.146. Side force coecient CY as function of the angle of side slip for
transonic-supersonic Mach numbers and = 5 , [62]
Fig. 6.147. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the angle of side slip
for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers and = 5 , [62]
6.10 PRORA (Italy)
279
Fig. 6.148. Yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the angle of side slip
for transonic-supersonic Mach numbers and = 5 , [62]. The moment reference
point is located at 68.5% of the body length L = 8 m.
280
6.11
HERMES (Europe)
In 1984, the French government launched a proposal for the development of

a space transportation system in order to guarantee Europe an autonomous
and manned access to space. Key parts of this system were the RV-W space
plane HERMES, Fig. 6.149, intended for a gliding re-entry from space to an
Earth landing site, and the launch system ARIANE V, which at that time was
a completely new rocket system. The original French project ocially became
an European project under the supervision of the European Space Agency
(ESA) in November 1987. HERMES was conceived to have the following
features:
ascent to low Earth orbit (up to 800 km) on top of the ARIANE V rocket,
30-90 days mission duration in orbit,
total launch mass 21000 kg,
fully reusability,
initially, the transportation of six astronauts and 4 500 kg payload into low
Earth orbit, and after a reorientation a reduction to three astronauts and
a transportation payload of 3000 kg.
In 1993 the HERMES project was cancelled due to the new political environment (end of the cold war) and budget constraints. At that time a total of
approximately $ 2 billion had already been invested in the HERMES project.
The pitching moment anomaly, [10], observed during the rst re-entry ight
of the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, had not found a profound explanation
when the HERMES development begun. Because it was suspected that it
was due to wind tunnel shortcomings, emphasis was put on the use of the at
that time emerging methods of numerical aerothermodynamics. The related
need of validation data as well as systems tests had led to the proposal of the
sub-scale experimental vehicle MAJA, [69].
No HERMES vehicle, nor the proposed sub-scale experimental vehicle
MAIA [69], was ever built.
Fig. 6.149. HERMES mock-up with propulsion and service module (left), HERMES shape with propulsion and service module docked at the Columbus module
(Manned Tended Free Flyer MTFF), synthetic image (middle), HERMES orbiter
during re-entry ight, synthetic image (right), [70].
6.11 HERMES (Europe)
281
Initially the numerical methods had not the capability to contribute essentially to the establishment of the aerothermodynamic data base of HERMES.
The computational uid dynamic (CFD) codes did not yet meet the following
requirements31 :
three-dimensional grid generation around complex congurations including
aps, rudders and gaps,
fast and robust solver of the convective part of the governing equations
(Euler equations),
description of real gas eects in thermodynamic equilibrium,
description of real gas eects in thermodynamic non-equilibrium,
full set of equations for viscous ows (Navier-Stokes equations),
turbulence models for industrial purposes, which are calibrated by selected
wind tunnel experiments,
consideration of catalytic walls,
accurate and reliable prediction of the laminar-turbulent transition zone,
proper resolution of turbulent boundary layers for the determination of
wall heat transfer,
wall radiation cooling including a view factor approach for non-convex
conguration parts,
general validation with ight test data.
With the passage of time, due to a research and development program
in the frame of the HERMES project, the requirements mentioned above
were developed and implemented piece by piece in the various CFD codes.
In 1990 a rst three-dimensional Euler solution with a non-equilibrium real
gas approach was obtained, Fig. 6.150 (right), [72]. This Euler solution was
then coupled with a three-dimensional second-order boundary layer solution,
formulated also for a non-equilibrium real gas, [73].
A great challenge for every CFD code consists in the computation of ow
elds which contain the base ow area. In base ow areas of space vehicles
often body aps, wing elevons and rudders are positioned, which in general
are deected during operational ight, and which therefore generate very
complex ow structures. Fig. 6.150 (left) shows an example of such a ow
eld, [75].
In the middle of Fig. 6.150 the plotted skin-friction lines at the leeward
side of the HERMES vehicle give an impression of the complex ow structure
with several separation and reattachment lines.
6.11.1
The Figs. 6.151 to 6.153 show the side view, the front view and the top view
of the HERMES shape 1.0, [78]. The total length of the vehicle was 14.574 m
31
This was true not only for Europe but also for the other countries involved in
space vehicle projects like the United States of America, the Soviet Union and
Japan.
282
Fig. 6.150. HERMES shape 1.0: Euler solution including aps and rudders for
wind tunnel conditions (left), skin-friction lines of a Navier-Stokes solution at the
leeward side (middle), Euler solution using a non-equilibrium real gas approach
(right), [71] - [75]
and the total width 9.379 m. At that time the center-of-gravity location was
not yet xed. In our moment diagrams we therefore have used a preliminary
value of 0.6 Lref .
The HERMES shape 1.0 has a delta wing with a sweep angle of 74 degrees.
Some interesting dimensions, quantities and reference values are listed in Tab.
6.5.
Table 6.5. HERMES shape 1.0: dimensions, quantities and reference values, [78].
See Figs. 6.151 to 6.153.
total length
Ltot
14.574 m
total width
Wtot
9.379 m
reference length
Lref
15.500 m
reference area
Sref
84.67 m2
x-coordinate of
center-of-gravity
xcog
8.722 m
Fig. 6.153
empty mass
me
15 000 kg
gross mass
at launch
mg
21 000 kg
283
Fig. 6.151. Denition of HERMES shape 1.0. Side view, [78].
Fig. 6.152. Denition of HERMES shape 1.0. Front view, [78].
The design philosophy of the HERMES conguration was dierent from

that of, for example, the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter. Its lateral stability
is caused by winglets and controlled by rudders mounted at the rear part of
these winglets. The SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter uses for this function a central
n. The advantage of the winglet design consists in the fact, that during reentry the winglets become aerodynamically eective earlier (at an altitude of
70 km) compared to the central n solution (eective at an altitude of 30
km). This is because the central n lies mostly in the hypersonic shadow due
to the high angles of attack on the re-entry path. The consequence for the
SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter is, that the lateral stability has to be controlled
by a reaction control system (RCS) (down to an altitude of 30 km). This is
284
Fig. 6.153. Denition of HERMES shape 1.0. Top view [78].
not necessary to this extent in the case of the winglet design of the HERMES
conguration.
6.11.2
The presented aerodynamic data are split into the Mach number groups
subsonic-supersonic and supersonic-hypersonic. Data for the longitudinal stability with regard to the subsonic-supersonic regime are presented in Figs.
6.154 to 6.157 and with respect to the supersonic-hypersonic regime in Figs.
6.158 to 6.161.
Data for the lateral stability regarding the subsonic-supersonic regime can
be found in Figs. 6.165 to 6.167 and regarding the supersonic-hypersonic
regime in Figs. 6.168 to 6.170.
The data base is composed with results from wind tunnel tests, approximate design methods and numerical simulations, [76, 77].
Longitudinal Motion
subsonic-supersonic regime
The lift coecient CL shows a nearly linear behavior over the whole angle of
attack range (5 30 ), Fig. 6.154. The drag coecient CD around
0 is small for all Mach numbers, rising with increasing angle of attack
as expected. For transonic Mach numbers CD is largest, Fig. 6.155. The
maximum lift-to-drag ratio L/Dmax 5 occurs at 10 in the subsonic
285
ight regime and reduces for the low supersonic Mach numbers (1.5 M
2.5) to L/D 2 at 15 , Fig. 6.156. The pitching moment data shown in
Fig. 6.157 indicate static stability (Cm / < 0) only for M = 1.1 and 1.5
up to 10 but with no trim point. In all other situations the HERMES
shape 1.0 behaves statically unstable (Cm / > 0). Of course, it should be
mentioned that this is valid for a moment reference point of 0.6 Lref , and
when aps and rudders are in neutral position.
lift coefficient CL
1
0.8
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=2.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
5
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack
Fig. 6.154. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for subsonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [76].
supersonic-hypersonic regime
The lift coecient CL becomes non-linear for angles of attack > 30 . For
hypersonic Mach numbers (M 10) we can observe the well known slight
increase of the CL slope32 (CL /) around 20 , Fig. 6.158. The drag
behaves like expected, Fig. 6.159. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio L/Dmax
reduces to values smaller than 2 for angles of attack 15 , Fig. 6.160.
In this Mach number regime longitudinal stability is given for angles of
attack 30 , and the vehicle can be trimmed without any deection of the
aerodynamic control surfaces (see the pitching moment diagram Fig. 6.161).
32
The reason for this probably is the lee-side vortex development.
286
0.8
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=2.5
0.7
drag coefficient CD
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.155. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for subsonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [76]
6
5
4
3
2
1
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
Fig. 6.156. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for subsonicsupersonic Mach numbers, [76]
287
0.02
0.01
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=2.5
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30

for subsonic-supersonic Mach numbers, moment reference point xref = 0.6 Lref ,
[76]
Finally, we point out the Mach number independence of CL , CD and L/D,

[10].
pitching moment considerations
We consider now the inuence of body ap and elevon deections on the
pitching moment. As an example we look at the case M = 10. When the
body ap is deected downwards to bf = 10 or 20 , the pressure force
at the aft part of the conguration increases, which leads to a pitch down
eect, with the consequence that the static stability grows slightly and the
trim point is shifted to lower angle of attack values, Fig. 6.162 (red and blue
curves). In contrast to that, when the body ap and the elevon are deected
upwards (bf = 15 , el = 10), the pressure force at the aft part is
reduced which subsequently leads to a pitch up eect. Static stability is lost
and the trim point is no longer inside the considered angle of attack range
(max = 50 ), Fig. 6.162 (green curve).
As we have experienced from Fig. 6.157, the pitching moment for the
subsonic Mach numbers M = 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9 indicates strong static instability. By a forward shift of the center-of-gravity from xref = 0.6 Lref
to xref = 0.565 Lref a pitch down eect is generated and the instability is
decreased, but no trim is ensured, Fig. 6.163. In order to ensure trim the
body ap and the elevons are deected upwards (bf = 10 , el = 10),
288

1
0.9
lift coefficient CL
0.8
0.7
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=6.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=20.0
M=30.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
angle of attack
40
45
50
Fig. 6.158. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [76]
drag coefficient CD
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=6.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=20.0
M=30.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
angle of attack
40
45
50
Fig. 6.159. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for supersonichypersonic Mach numbers, [76]

2.5
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=6.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=20.0
M=30.0
2
289
1.5
0.5
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
angle of attack
40
45
50
0.02
M=3.0
M=4.0
M=6.0
M=8.0
M=10.0
M=20.0
M=30.0
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
10
15
20
25
30
35
angle of attack
40
45
50

for supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, moment reference point xref = 0.6 Lref ,
[76]
290
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0
bf = 0, el = 0
= +10, = 0
bf
el
bf = +20, el = 0
bf = 15, el = 10
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50

. Body ap and elevon eciency for M = 10. Moment reference point xref =
0.6 Lref , [76].
whereby, as mentioned above, the pressure force in the aft part of the conguration is reduced which causes a pitch up eect. For these Mach numbers
in this way a trimmed ight of the HERMES conguration is possible, Fig.
6.164.
Lateral Motion
subsonic-supersonic regime
The rolling moment and the yawing moment per degree of the sideslip angle
are shown in Figs. 6.165 and 6.166. The roll motion is damped throughout
almost the whole subsonic-supersonic Mach number and angle of attack range
and that all the more if increases. The yawing moment indicates static
stability only beyond angle of attack values 15 . Fig. 6.167 displays the
side force as function of the sideslip angle .
supersonic-hypersonic regime
Also in the supersonic-hypersonic regime roll motion is damped (Cl / <
0), where the diagram shows also the begin of the Mach number independency
(or very weak dependency) with increasing hypersonic Mach number, Fig.
6.168. The yaw stability is somewhat more critical for high Mach numbers and
is obviously only attained at high angles of attack, e.g., M = 30 48 ,
291
0.02
0.01
0
M=0.3, x = 0.6 L
ref
ref
M=0.7, xref= 0.6 Lref
M=0.9, x = 0.6 L
ref
ref
M=0.3, xref= 0.565 Lref
M=0.7, xref= 0.565 Lref
M=0.9, x = 0.565 L
ref
ref
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
5
10
15
20
25
30
angle of attack
three subsonic Mach numbers. Comparison of the nominal moment reference point
xref = 0.6 Lref with the forward shifted moment reference point xref = 0.565 Lref ,
[76].
0.01
M=0.3, xref= 0.565 Lref, el = bf = 10

M=0.7, x = 0.565 L , = = 10
ref
ref
el
bf
M=0.9, xref= 0.565 Lref, el = bf = 10
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
30
three subsonic Mach numbers. Body ap deection bf = 10 , elevon deection
el = 10 . Moment reference point xref = 0.565 Lref , [76].
292

3
x 10
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
rolling moment coefficient per degree C
5
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 6.165. Rolling moment coecient per degree Cl as function of the angle of
attack . Subsonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [76].
4
yawing moment coefficient per degree Cn
10
x 10
M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
5
0
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 6.166. Yawing moment coecient per degree Cn as function of the angle
of attack . Moment reference point xref = 0.6 Lref . Subsonic-supersonic Mach
numbers, [76].

M=0.3
M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=1.5
M=2.0
M=2.5
0.1
293
0.05
0.05
0.1
15
10
0
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.167. Side force coecient CY as function of the angle of the yaw for an
angle of attack = 30 . Subsonic-supersonic Mach numbers, [76].
Fig. 6.169. Again, the side force gives a nice impression of the Mach number
independency of the aerodynamic coecients, Fig. 6.170.
6.11.3
Data from the investigations of the dynamic stability are not available.
294

3
x 10
M=2.5
M=6.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=30.0
rolling moment coefficient per degree C
0.5
0.5
1.5
2
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.168. Rolling moment coecient per degree Cl as function of the angle of
attack . Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [76].
4
yawing moment coefficient per degree Cn
10
x 10
M=2.5
M=6.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=30.0
5
0
10
20
30
angle of attack
40
50
Fig. 6.169. Yawing moment coecient per degree Cl as function of the angle
of attack . Moment reference point xref = 0.6 Lref . Supersonic-hypersonic Mach
numbers, [76].

M=2.5
M=6.0
M=10.0
M=15.0
M=30.0
0.1
295
0.05
0.05
0.1
15
10
0
5
angle of yaw
10
15
Fig. 6.170. Side force coecient CY as function of the angle of yaw for an angle
of attack = 40 . Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers, [76].
296
References
1. Arrington, J.P., Jones, J.J.: Shuttle Performance: Lessons Learned. NASA Conference Publication 2283, Part 1 (1983)
2. Throckmorton, D.A. (ed.): Orbiter Experiments (OEX) Aerothermodynamics
Symposium. NASA CP-3248 (1995)
3. Isakowitz, S.J.: International Reference Guide to SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEMS.
AIAA 1991 Edition (1991)
4. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery
5. N.N. Aerodynamic Design Data Book - Orbiter Vehicle STS-1. Rockwell International, USA (1980)
6. Martin, L.: Aerodynamic Coecient Measurements, Body Flap Eciency and
Oil Flow Visualization on an Orbiter Model at Mach 10 in the ONERA S4
Wind Tunnel. ONERA Report No. 8907 GY 400G (1995)
7. Grith, B.F., Maus, J.R., Best, J.T.: Explanation of the Hypersonic Longitudinal Stability Problem - Lessons Learned. In: Arrington, J.P., Jones, J.J. (eds.)
Shuttle Performance: Lessons Learned. NASA CP-2283, Part 1, pp. 347380
(1983)
8. Br
uck, S., Radespiel, R.: Navier-Stokes Solutions for the Flow Around the
HALIS Conguration F4 Wind Tunnel Conditions . DLR Internal Report,
IB 129 - 96/2 (1996)
9. Hartmann, G., Menne, S.: Winged Aerothermodynamic Activities. MSTP Report, H-TN-E33.3-004-DASA, Dasa, M
11. Ili, K.W., Shafer, M.F.: Extraction of Stability and Control Derivatives from
Orbiter Flight Data. In: Throckmorton, D. A. (ed.) Orbiter Experiments
(OEX) Aerothermodynamics Symposium. NASA CP-3248, Part 1, pp. 299344
(1995)
Heidelberg (2011)
13. N. N. Rocket Propulsion Systems. The Boeing Company - Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, Pub. 573-A-100 New 9/99 (1999)
14. Hollis, B.R., Thompson, R.A., Berry, S.A., Horvath, T.J., Murphy, K.J.,
Nowak, R.J., Alter, S.J.: X-33 Computational Aeroheating/Aerodynamic Predictions and Comparisons with Experimental Data. NASA / TP-2003-212160
(2003)
15. Murphy, K.J., Nowak, R.J., Thompson, R.A., Hollis, B.R., Prabhu, R.K.: X-33
Hypersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics. AIAA-Paper 99-4162 (1999)
16. Hollis, B.R., Thompson, R.A., Murphy, K.J., Nowak, R.J., Riley, C.J., Wood,
W.A., Alter, S.J., Prabhu, R.K.: X-33 Aerodynamic and Aeroheating Computations for Wind Tunnel and Flight Conditions. AIAA-Paper 99-4163 (1999)
References
297
17. Prabhu, R.K.: An Inviscid Computational Study of an X-33 Conguration at

Hypersonic Speeds. NASA/CR-1999-209366 (1999)
18. Pamadi, B.N., Brauckmann, G.J., Ruth, M.J., Fuhrmann, H.D.: Aerodynamic
Characteristics, Database Development and Flight Simulation of the X-34 Vehicle. AIAA-Paper 2000-0900 (2000)
19. Brauckmann, G.J.: X-34 Vehicle Aerodynamic Characteristics. J. of Spacecraft
and Rockets 36(2) (March-April 1999)
20. Pamadi, B.N., Brauckmann, G.J.: Aerodynamic Characteristics and Development of the Aerodynamic Database of the X-34 Reusable Launch Vehicle. In:
Proceedings 1st Int. Symp. on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems,
21. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news
22. Prabhu, R.K.: Inviscid Flow Computations of the Orbital Sciences X-34 Over
a Mach Number Range of 1.25 to 6.0. NASA / CR-2001-210849 (2001)
23. Manley, D.J., Cervisi, R.T., Staszak, P.R.: Nasa powerpoint presentation
(2001),
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts
24. Campbell, C.H., Caram, J.M., Li, C.P., Madden, C.B.: Aerothermodynamic
environment denition for an X-23/X-24A derived assured crew return vehicle.
AIAA-Paper 96-1862 (1996)
25. Tarfeld, F.: Measurement of Direct Dynamic Derivatives with the ForcedOscillation Technique on the Reentry Vehicle X-38 in Supersonic Flow. DLR,
TETRA Programme, TET-DLR-21-TN-3104 (2001)
26. Weiland, C., Longo, J.M.A., G
ulhan, A., Decker, K.: Aerothermodynamics
for Reusable Launch Systems. Aerospace Science and Technology 8, 101110
(2004)
27. Longo, J.: Aerothermodynamik Endbericht. Deutsches Zentrum f
ur Luft- und
Raumfahrt DLR, TETRA Programme, TET-DLR-21-PR-3018 (2003)
28. Weiland, C.: X-38 CRV S4MA Windtunnel Test Results. Dasa, X-CRV Report,
HT-TN-001/99-DASA, Dasa, M
29. Behr, R.: Hot, Radiation Cooled Surfaces. TETRA Programme, TET-DASA21-TN-2410, Dasa M
30. Goergen, J.: CFD Analysis of X-38 Free Flight. TETRA Programme, TETDASA-21-TN-2401, Dasa M
31. N. N. X-38 Aerodynamic Design Data Book. NASA/ESA/DLR/Dassault, Internal Meeting Report EG3-X38-ADB 0001 (October 1999)
32. Labbe, S.G., Perez, L.F., Fitzgerald, S., Longo, J.M.A., Molina, R., Rapuc, M.:
X-38 Integrated Aero- and Aerothermodynamic Activities. Aerospace Science
and Technology 3, 485493 (1999)
(2010)
34. N.N. X-38 Data Base. Industrial communication, Dassault Aviation - NASA European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, EADS (1999)
35. Behr, R., Weber, C.: Aerothermodynamics - Euler Computations. X-CRV Rep.,
HT-TN-002/2000-DASA, Dasa, M
298
36. Aiello, M., Stojanowski, M.: X-38 CRV, S3MA Windtunnel Test Results. XCRV Rep., DGT No. 73442, Aviation M. Dassault, St. Cloud, France (1998)
37. Esch, H., Tarfeld, F.: Force Measurements on a 3.3% Model of X-38, Rev.8.3
Space Vehicle in Supersonic Flow. DLR IB - 39113-99C12 (1999)
38. Giese, P., Heinrich, R., Radespiel, R.: Numerical Prediction of Dynamic Derivatives for Lifting Bodies with a Navier-Stokes Solver. In: Notes on Numerical
Fluid Mechanics, vol. 72, pp. 186193. Vieweg Verlag (1999)
39. Giese, P.: Numerical Prediction of First Order Dynamic Derivatives with
Help of the Flower Code. DLR TETRA Programme, TET-DLR-21-TN-3201
(2000)
40. Daimler-Benz Aerospace Space Infrastructure, FESTIP System Study Proceedings. FFSC-15 Suborbital HTO-HL System Concept Family. EADS,
M
41. Jategaonkar, R., Behr, R., Gockel, W., Zorn, C.: Data Analysis of Phoenix
RLV Demonstrator Flight Test. AIAA-AFM Conference, San Franzisco, AIAAPaper 2005-6129 (2005)
42. Janovsky, R., Behr, R.: Flight Testing and Test Instrumentation of Phoenix. In:
5th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESASP-563 (2004)
44. H
aberle, J.: Einuss heisser Ober
achen auf aerothermodynamische Flugeigenschaften von HOPPER/PHOENIX (Inuence of Hot Surfaces on Aerothermodynamic Flight Properties of HOPPER/PHOENIX). Diploma Thesis, Institut
f
ur Aerodynamik und Gasdynamik, Universit
at Stuttgart, Germany (2004)
45. N.N. PHOENIX Data Base. Internal industrial communication, EADS,
M
46. N.N. PHOENIX Tests in Shock Tunnel. Private Communication between TH2
shock tunnel of University of Aachen and Dasa Munich (2002)
47. Behr, R.: CFD Computations. Private communications, EADS M
unchen / Ottobrunn, Germany (2007)
48. Behr, R.: Phoenix: Aerodynamic Data Base, Version 3.1. EADS-ST Report
PHX-DP-01, EADS-ST M
unich Germany (2004)
(1972)
51. N.N. HOPE-X Data Base. Industrial communication, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, EADS/Japanese Space Agency, NASDA
(1998)
52. Tsujimoto, T., Sakamoto, Y., Akimoto, T., Kouchiyama, J., Ishimoto, S., Aoki,
T.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of HOPE-X Conguration with Twin Tails.
AIAA-Paper 2001-1827 (2001)
53. Behr, R., Wagner, A., Buhl, W.H.-X.: Feasibility Study. Deutsche Aerospace
Dasa, DASA-TN-HOPE 001 (1999) (unpublished)
References
299
54. Barth, T.: Aerothermodynamische Untersuchungen Facettierter Raumfahrzeuge unter Wiedereintrittsbedingungen (Aerothermodynamic Investigations of Facetted Space Vehicles under Re-entry Conditions). Doctoral Thesis,
Institut f
ur Thermodynamik der Luft- und Raumfahrt, Universit
at Stuttgart
(2010)
55. Eggers, T., Longo, J.M.A., Turner, J., Jung, W., Horschgen, M., Stamminger,
A., G
ulhan, A., Siebe, F., Requart, G., Laux, T., Reimer, T., Weihs, H.: The
SHEFEX Flight Experiment -Pathnder Experiment for a Sky Based Test
Facility-. AIAA-Paper 2006-7921 (2006)
56. Weihs, H., Turner, J., Longo, J.M.A., G
ulhan, A.: Key Experiments within the
Shefex II Mission. In: 60th International Aeronautical Congress, IAC-08-D2.6.4
(2008)
57. Eggers, T.: Project HILIFT. High Hypersonic L/D Preliminary Reference Congurations. DLR-IB 124-2009/901 (2009)
58. Ramos, R.H., Bonetti, D., De Zaiacomo, G., Eggers, T., Fossati, F., Serpico,
M., Molina, R., Caporicci, M.: High Lift-to-Drag Re-entry Concepts for Space
Transportation Missions. AIAA-Paper 2009-7412 (2009)
59. Hirschel, E.H., Weiland, C.: Design of hypersonic ight vehicles: some lessons
from the past and future challenges. CEAS Space Journal 1(1), 322 (2011)
60. Russo, G., Capuano, A.: The PRORA-USV Program. ESA-SP-487, pp. 3748
(2002)
61. Rufolo, G.C., Roncioni, P., Marini, M., Borrelli, S.: Post Flight Aerodynamic
Analysis of the Experimental Vehicle PRORA USV 1. AIAA-Paper 2008-2661
(2008)
62. Rufolo, G.C., Roncioni, P., Marini, M., Votta, R., Palazzo, S.: Experimental
and Numerical Aerodynamic Data Integration and Aerodatabase Development
for the PRORA-USV-FTB-1 Reusable Vehicle. AIAA-Paper 2006-8031 (2006)
63. Borrelli, S.: Private communication (2013)
64. Borrelli, S., Marini, M.: The Technology Program in Aerothermodynamics for
PRORA-USV. ESA-SP-487, pp. 49 - 57 (2002)
65. Serpico, M., Schettino, A.: Preliminary Aerodynamic Performance of the
PRORA-USV Experimental Vehicle. ESA-SP-487, pp.1831900 (2002)
66. Russo, G.: The USV Advanced Re-entry Experimental Flying Laboratories.
In: Proceedings: 4th Int. Symp. of Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems
(Powerpoint presentation), Arcachon (March 2005)
67. Rufolo, G.C., Marini, M., Roncioni, P., Borrelli, S.: In Flight Aerodynamic
Experiment for the Unmanned Space Vehicle FTB-1. In: 1st CEAS European
Air and Space Conference, Berlin, Germany (2007)
68. Roncioni, P., Rufolo, G.C., Marini, M., Borrelli, S.: CFD Rebuilding of
USVDTFT1 Vehicle In-Flight Experiment. In: 59th Int. Astron. Cong., Glasgow, U.K. (2008)
69. Hirschel, E.H., Grallert, H., Lafon, J., Rapuc, M.: Acquisition of an Aerodynamic Data Base by Means of a Winged Experimental Reentry Vehicle.
Zeitschrift f
ur Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung (ZFW) 16(1), 1527
(1992)
300
70. http://www.esa.int
71. Hartmann, G., Weiland, C.: Str
omungsfeldberechnungen um den HERMES
Raumgleiter w
ahrend der Wiedereintrittsphase. DGLR-Paper 91-223, Jahrestagung Berlin (1991)
72. Menne, S., Weiland, C., Ptzner, M.: Computation of 3-D Hypersonic Flows
in Chemical Non-Equilibrium Including Transport Phenomena. AIAA-Paper
92-2876, 1992. J. of Aircraft 31(3) (1994)
73. Monnoyer, F., Mundt, C., Ptzner, M.: Calculation of the Hypersonic Viscous
Flow Past Re-entry Vehicles with an Euler/Boundary Layer Coupling Method.
AIAA-Paper 90-0417 (1990)
74. Weiland, C., Schr
oder, W., Menne, S.: An Extended Insight into Hypersonic
Flow Phenomena Using Numerical Methods. Computer and Fluids 22 (1993)
75. Weiland, C.: Numerical Aerothermodynamics. In: Proceedings: 2nd International Symposium on Atmospheric Re-entry Vehicles and Systems, Arcachon
France (2001)
76. Courty, J.C., Rapuc, M., Vancamberg, P.: Aerodynamic and Thermal Data
Bases. HERMES Report, H-NT-1-1206-AMD, Aviation M. Dassault, St. Cloud,
France (1991)
77. Hartmann, G., Menne, S., Schr
oder, W.: Uncertainties Analysis/Critical Points.
HERMES Report, H-NT-1-0329-DASA, Dasa, M
unchen/Ottobrunn, Germany
(1994)
78. Courty, J.C., Vancamberg, P.: Justication of the Choice of Shape 1.0. HERMES Report, H-BT-1-1003-AMD, Aviation M. Dassault, St. Cloud, France
(1990)
Aerothermodynamic Data of Cruise and

Acceleration Vehicles (CAV)
Most of the space vehicles which became operational or had carried out at
least one demonstrator ight stem from the RV-NW vehicle class (capsules,
probes, cones), Sections 4 and 5. For the more complex RV-W vehicles we
know that just one object became operational, the SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter, and some objects had undertaken demonstrator ights, Section 6. For
the most complex space transportation systems, which will operate on the
basis of the CAV vehicle class, either Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) or TwoStage-To-Orbit (TSTO) systems, up to now, only system and technology
studies have been and are performed. Nevertheless the future will be among
the CAV based systems.
7.1
Introduction
The access to space has taken place from the beginning essentially by rocket
systems. These systems have carried, and this is true until these days , the
unmanned and manned capsules, probes and satellites. The destinations were
and are various Earths orbits, the Moon and the planets of our planetary
system and their moons. Most of the parts of the rockets are expendable,
which is true also for the early re-entry vehicles, viz. the capsules.
After this period of space transport the space agencies began to think
about advancements regarding the philosophy and structure of space transportation.
The disadvantages of the carriage of men into space by a rocket/capsule
system are as follows:
1. Take-o from a vertical launch pad requires a very long preparation.
2. The expendability of the whole system leads to very high recurring costs
(refurbishment and mission operations) with the consequence that the costs
for carrying payloads into space are severe.
3. The landing procedure of the capsules with their impact either on water
surfaces or on rigid grounds is always critical.
4. The small cross-range capability.
The rst step to overcome some of these disadvantages was taken by the
development of the SPACE SHUTTLE system. However the SPACE SHUTC. Weiland, Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles,
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_7,
301
302
7 Aerothermodynamic Data of CAVs
TLE system maintains the disadvantage item 1. But the degree of expendability (item 2) is strongly reduced, since the Orbiter is fully reusable and
the boosters are at least partly reusable. Only the tank remains expendable.
Item 3 does not hold, because the Orbiter is a winged re-entry vehicle with
sucient aerodynamic performance (lift-to-drag ratio) in subsonic ight, and
therefore is able to land horizontally on a suitable run way. The generation of
an adequate amount of cross-range capacity is necessary for the compensation of vehicle drifts away from the destined landing ground due to critical or
bad wether conditions1 as well as due to inaccuracies or failures in the ight
mechanical system. The relatively high lift-to-drag ratio of the SHUTTLE
Orbiter guarantees a sucient cross-range margin, whereby item 4 essentially
is eliminated.
Since the access to space after the drop of the iron curtain more or less is
only a commercial market driven business, the cost eciency of future launch
systems has highest priority. The system with the lowest costs for carrying
reliably payloads into space will have the best chances to be competitive
in the globalized world. Therefore space transportation systems have to be
considered which eliminate the drawbacks of the systems described above.
There is no doubt about the agreement that such systems must be fully
reusable and must have a horizontal landing capability, [2, 3]. Two classes of
systems, viz. the Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) and the Two-Stage-to-Orbit
(TSTO) vehicles, come into consideration. Both systems land horizontally,
but the launch can either be vertically or horizontally. A further agreement
is that the requirements on the transportation framework and on the technologies are much more challenging for the realization of a SSTO system than
for a TSTO system. Therefore the next step for designing an advanced space
plane, was to deal with the TSTO approach.
We discuss in the following sections2 the aerodynamic data of two of such
systems.
1
2
Or the inaccurate knowledge of the atmospheric density at high altitude, see.

e.g., [1].
Regrettably it was only possible to present data from German TSTO studies.
Data from, for instance, STAR-H, PREPHA, MIGAKS, etc., were not available.
7.2 SAENGER (Germany)
7.2
303
SAENGER (Germany)
In 1986 the German ministry of research and technology decided to start a

national technology activity dealing exclusively with hypersonic ight. The
reason for that was to nd new solutions for the access to space by using advanced space vehicles beyond the expendable rocket based concepts of
capsules or the partly reusable SPACE SHUTTLE system. Therefore in 1988
the German Hypersonic Technology Program was initiated. The objectives
of this program were
the denition of a reference concept,
the identication of technological needs,
the establishment of a development and verication strategy,
all that for hypersonic ight, [2, 4].
Forerunner of the technology program was a study in which dierent possible supersonic and hypersonic ight vehicles were investigated. The reference
concept of the hypersonic technology program was a Two-Stage-To-Orbit
system (TSTO). Actually it was the lower stage, which was derived from the
Leitkonzept (reference concept) of the forerunner study, [5].
One of the main attributes of a TSTO system is its horizontal take o and
landing capability, which would make an operating base in Europe possible.
Since the German aerospace engineer Eugen Sanger had already suggested in
1963 to develop a TSTO system as an advanced future space transportation
vehicle, the reference concept of the program got the name SAENGER II (in
the following referred to simply as SAENGER).
SAENGER consists of a lower and an upper stage. In the frame of the
initial study phase it was planned to analyze if the lower stage could meet two
dierent mission scenarios. On the one hand it was to serve as a transporter
of the upper stage to an altitude of approximately 33 km, where the upper
stage was then separated for the subsequent climb to an Earth orbit. On
the other hand it was asked whether a hypersonic passenger aircraft could
be derived from it. This M = 4 aircraft was called European Hypersonic
Transport Vehicle (EHTV).
The lower stage has a trough on the upper side, where the upper stage
is positioned (piggy-back situation), if the lower stage serves as upper stage
transporter to space. The upper stage got the name HORUS.
Fig. 7.1 shows two synthetic images of the SAENGER system. The stage
separation is illustrated with two synthetic images in Fig. 7.2. The lower
stage with the through for the upper stage is seen in Fig. 7.3 left (the trough
is visible also in Fig. 7.2), whereas the right part of this gure shows the
conguration including HORUS. The following sections deal only with the
lower stage of the SAENGER system.
304
Fig. 7.1. Two-Stage-to-Orbit conguration SAENGER/HORUS, synthetic images, [2, 6]
Fig. 7.2. Two-Stage-to-Orbit conguration SAENGER/HORUS, synthetic images

of stage separation, [6]
Fig. 7.3. Panel grids: SAENGER lower stage without the HORUS Orbiter (left),
with the HORUS Orbiter (right), [11]
7.2.1
305
A rst conguration of the SAENGER lower stage was established in Aug.

1988 (conguration 8/88). The aerodynamic data set of the lower stage was
generated from a large amount of wind tunnel tests, [7] - [10], solutions of
approximate design methods and numerical ow eld calculations for some
selected trajectory points. As a result of these activities some drawbacks
of the aerodynamic design of the lower stage were identied3 , which led to
a redesign of the shape. The engineering drawings of this enhanced shape,
denoted by conguration 4/92, are displayed in Fig. 7.4. The total length of
the vehicle amounts to 82.4 m, its span width is 45.2 m. The characteristics
of the shape are determined by a nearly double delta wing structure with a
small negative dihedral in the aft part of the wing and the distinct fuselage
with a width of 14.4 m. The aerodynamic data base presented in the section
below corresponds to this advanced shape. This data base was established
essentially by the application of approximate design methods together with
calibration procedures based on the aerodynamic data set of the 8/88 shape.
7.2.2
The focus of our discussion regarding the aerodynamic data base is placed
on the lower stage (without HORUS) of the SAENGER system. For completeness we will also present an overview about the aerodynamics of the
SAENGER lower stage with HORUS.
In the frame of the European HERMES project (see Section 6.11) intensive
activities were conducted in Europe, and therefore also in Germany, to bring
the numerical methods for solving the Euler and Navier-Stokes) equations
for ow elds past complex space vehicles to such a maturity that besides
the ow details also the integral values of the forces and moments acting on
the vehicles (aerodynamic coecients) are ascertainable with high accuracy.
In Fig. 7.5 we present an example of a Navier-Stokes solution around the
SAENGER lower stage. The free-stream conditions constituting a free ight
situation are: M = 4.5, = 6 , ReL = 2.6 108 , T = 222 K, H = 26
km. The wing aps (elevator) are deected by = 5 (downward). The ow
was treated to be fully turbulent and the surface was to be considered as a
radiation adiabatic wall with an emissivity coecient = 0.85.
In the left part of the gure the skin-friction lines on the leeward side
including the trough area are shown, the middle part presents the numerical
grid and the right part exhibits the radiation adiabatic wall temperatures
and again the skin friction lines. The skin-friction lines indicate over the
wings an incipient ow separation forming the well known lee-side vortices
of delta wing shapes. Further at the lateral boundaries of the trough the
3
These drawbacks did not come exclusively from the original shape, but also from
the need to better integrate the propulsion system, see [1].
306
ow separates and again vortices are formed. High temperatures exists at

the leading edges of the double delta wing and the tails as well as at the end
of the trough, where the vortices coming from the trough edges impinge on
the surface.
Fig. 7.4. Shape denition of the SAENGER 4/92 conguration, engineering drawings of side view (above), top view (middle) and front view (below), [11]
307
One of the advantages of the numerical ow eld computations is that

in principle every ight situation can be simulated, for example free ight
conditions with various atmospheric specications or wind tunnel conditions
with similarity parameters like the Reynolds number, the Mach number or
the total enthalpy, which do not meet always the free ight reality. By integration of the pressure and the shear-stress elds at the wall, as part of
numerically simulated three-dimensional ow elds, for example given in Fig.
7.5, every static aerodynamic coecient, either longitudinal or lateral, can
be calculated. In our example we have listed in Table 7.1 the coecients of
longitudinal motion for one free ight trajectory point and one wind tunnel
condition. The results t very good in the aerodynamic data base discussed
further below.
Table 7.1. Results of Navier-Stokes solutions past the SAENGER lower stage
conguration (4/92). Flight condition 1, free-ight, fully turbulent ow: M =
4.5, = 6 , ReL = 2.6 108 , T = 222 K, H = 26 km , = 5 , [12]. Flight
condition 2, wind tunnel, laminar ow: M = 6.83, = 6 , ReL = 0.403 106 ,
[10].
CL
L/D
Cm
0.06490 0.01200
5.425
0.00147
M = 6.83, ReL = 0.403 106 0.04668 0.01362

Flight condition 2
3.426
0.00157
M = 4.5, ReL = 2.6 108

Flight condition 1
CD
Fig. 7.5. Flow eld investigations of the SAENGER lower stage. Numerical ow
eld simulation (Navier-Stokes solution) with free-stream conditions M = 4.5, =
6 , Re = 2.6 108 , T = 222 K, H = 26 km, fully turbulent. Skin-friction lines at
the leeward side including the trough area (left), numerical surface grid (middle),
skin-friction lines and surface temperatures at the leeward side (right), [12] - [14].
308
The space mission of a TSTO system requires the separation of the upper
stage from the lower stage at a prescribed trajectory point. This procedure is
shown in a more illustrating way in [2]. Fig. 7.6 exhibits the stage separation
model mounted in the hypersonic wind tunnel H2K of the DLR, Cologne
Germany, [16].
The prediction of the aerodynamic behavior of the two stages of the
SAENGER system during stage separation is a very challenging task, since
strong interactions occur between the ow elds of the two stages. The main
interactions come from the shock waves and the vortices. Fig. 7.7 shows left
a wind tunnel test, [16], and right the corresponding three-dimensional numerical solution, [17]. The agreement of the ow eld structures is evident.
Fig. 7.6. Model for the stage separation test in the hypersonic wind tunnel H2K
(left, right), sketch of the stage separation procedure (middle) [15, 16]
Fig. 7.7. Stage separation test in the wind tunnel (left), [15, 16], numerical simulation of the stage separation ow eld (right), [17]
309
Longitudinal Motion
The aerodynamic coecients of the longitudinal motion of the lower stage
of the SAENGER system are depicted in Figs. 7.8 - 7.18. Note that the aerodynamic data base was established with a conguration without the propulsion system. For a discussion of the book-keeping procedure of aerodynamic
and propulsion forces see [1].
The lift coecients for the subsonic-transonic regime, plotted in Fig. 7.8,
reveal a non-linear behavior, which is typical for delta wings, and is due to
the formation of the lee-side vortices which reduces the magnitude of the
lee-side surface pressure. For higher Mach numbers this eect vanishes and
a strictly linear behavior can be observed, Fig. 7.9. Further the lift slope
(CL /) decreases beyond the transonic regime continuously with growing
Mach number. The drag coecient CD is lowest around 0 : we have
CD,M =0.2,0 = 0.00750. The drag increases in the transonic regime to
a local maximum with CD,M =1.1,0 = 0.0156 and diminishes again in
the hypersonic regime to CD,M =7,0 = 0.00742. Generally, the lowest
drag coecient as function of ensues for M = 7, Figs. 7.10, 7.11. It
seems that Mach number independency is reached around M 7 which is
somewhat later than for capsules or pure re-entry vehicles where this happens
at M 5.5.
0.8
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
0.7
lift coefficient C
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.8. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for the subsonictransonic Mach number regime, [11]
310
0.8
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0.7
lift coefficient C
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.9. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for the supersonichypersonic Mach number regime, [11]
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
drag coefficient C
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.10. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for the subsonictransonic Mach number regime, [11]
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0.25
drag coefficient C
311
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.11. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for the
supersonic-hypersonic Mach number regime, [11]
10
8
6
4
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
2
0
2
4
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.12. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for the
subsonic-transonic Mach number regime, [11]
312
10
8
6
4
2
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0
2
4
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
supersonic-hypersonic Mach number regime, [11]
The maximum aerodynamic performance is obtained for 0.5 M 0.9

and 4 with L/Dmax 9.5, Fig. 7.12. This is also in contrast to the
blunt capsules and re-entry vehicles where usually the maximum L/D occurs
for low subsonic speeds. With growing Mach number L/Dmax is shifted to
higher angles of attack where values of around 7 are attained for hypersonic
velocities (M = 7). There the maximum aerodynamic performance has the
magnitude L/Dmax 4.5, Fig. 7.13.
The lower stage of the SAENGER system is longitudinal stable in the
whole Mach number regime. The gradient Cm /, which is a measure for
the degree of stability, has a maximum for transonic speeds and is lowest
for hypersonic Mach numbers, Figs. 7.14 and 7.15. Trim for positive angles
of attack obviously is not possible for the moment reference point xref =
0.65 Lref . The pitching moment is primarily negative (pitch down eect). In
order to allow for trim at an adequately positive angle of attack a pitch-up
moment for all angles of attack must be generated. A shift of the moment
reference point backwards reduces the pitch down moment in the case that
the normal force CZ is negative4 . This indeed happens for angles of attack
4 to 5 . But for values around zero degree CZ changes sign and
4
Note that in the body xed coordinate system the z-coordinate is directed downwards and the normal force CZ is positive in this direction, Figs. 8.1 and 8.2.
313
becomes slightly positive. Therefore with a backward shift of xref trim cannot
be attained as Figs. 7.16 and 7.17 demonstrate5 .
The full SAENGER system, lower stage including the upper stage HORUS, has a very similar aerodynamic data base compared to the lower stage
alone, Figs. 7.18 and 7.19. Nevertheless some minor dierences in particular
for > 10 remain. The lift is lower for subsonic-transonic speeds and the
maximum L/D somewhat higher (L/Dmax 9.8). Further the pitching moment diagrams reveal a slightly reduced static stability for the full SAENGER
system.
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
15
10
angle of attack
20
25

for the subsonic-transonic Mach number regime, [11]. Moment reference point
xref = 53.56 m ( xref = 0.65 Lref ), zref = 1.2 m.
Lateral Motion
The side force derivative CY / as function of Mach number is plotted
in Fig. 7.20. Around sonic speed, CY / features a minimum and rises
then again with increasing Mach number. The rolling moment derivative
Cl / (roll stiness coecient) is always negative for the lower stage of
the SAENGER system and decreases with increasing angle of attack, but
5
For the whole picture of course, the propulsion forces must be taken into account.
Regarding longitudinal stability and trim two principally dierent approaches are
possible: 1) autonomous airframe trim, 2) integrated airframe/propulsion trim,
[18].
314
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
10
15
angle of attack
20
25

for the supersonic-hypersonic Mach number regime, [11]. Moment reference point
xref = 53.56 m ( xref = 0.65 Lref ) , zref = 1.2 m.
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
10
15
angle of attack
20
25

for the subsonic-transonic Mach number regime. The moment reference point has
been shifted to xref = 0.68 Lref compared to Fig. 7.14.
315
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0.06
0.08
0.1
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
0.8
0.25
0.6
0.2
drag coefficient CD
lift coefficient C
the supersonic-hypersonic Mach number regime. The moment reference point has
been shifted to xref = 0.68 Lref compared to Fig. 7.15.
0.4
0.2
M=0.20
M=0.50
M=0.80
M=0.90
M=0.95
M=1.10
M=1.30
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
10
20
8
6
4
2
0
2
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Fig. 7.18. Longitudinal motion of the SAENGER conguration with HORUS.

Subsonic-transonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.65 Lref .

0.8
0.25
0.6
0.2
drag coefficient CD
lift coefficient C
316
0.4
0.2
M=1.60
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
M=7.00
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
10
20
8
6
4
2
0
2
0
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
5
10
15
angle of attack
20
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Fig. 7.19. Longitudinal motion of the SAENGER conguration with HORUS.

Supersonic-hypersonic Mach numbers. Moment reference point xref = 0.65 Lref .
increases with Mach number, Fig. 7.21. This behavior indicates that the roll
motion is damped.
Directional stability is given if the yawing moment derivative Cn / (yaw
stiness coecient) is positive, which is the case for the lower stage, where
with increasing Mach number the magnitude of the stability decreases, Fig.
7.22. When an angle of yaw disturbance occurs the vehicle rotates always
into the wind direction. This requires a negative side force CY and a line
of action of this force lying behind the reference point. Both conditions are
apparently true for this vehicle.
7.2.3
317
side force coefficient CY per degree
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0
4
Mach number
Fig. 7.20. Side force coecient CY per degree of the yaw angle as function of
Mach number, [11]
3
x 10
roll stiffness C
2
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=1.20
M=1.33
M=1.63
M=1.79
M=2.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
10
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.21. Roll stiness coecient Cl / as function of the angle of attack ,

[11]. Moment reference point xref = 53.56 m ( xref = 0.65 Lref ), zref = 1.2 m.
318

3
x 10
M=0.50
M=0.90
M=1.20
M=1.33
M=1.63
M=1.79
M=2.00
M=3.00
M=4.00
M=6.00
Yaw stiffness C
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
15
angle of attack
20
25
Fig. 7.22. Yaw stiness coecient Cn / as function of the angle of attack ,

[11]. Moment reference point xref = 53.56 m ( xref = 0.65 Lref ), zref = 1.2 m.
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
7.3
319
ELAC (Germany)
In Germany three Collaborative Research Centers (SFB), initialized 1989

by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft6, were established in order to bring
forward the research on the basic principles necessary for a possible evolution
of TSTOs. In that frame a reference concept was designed with the lower
stage called ELAC (Elliptical Aerodynamic Conguration) and the upper
stage called EOS (ELAC Orbital Stage), Fig. 7.23, [20].
Most of the work for establishing the aerodynamic data set was performed
in wind tunnels. Fig. 7.24 shows ELAC models in the Large Low Speed
Facility (LLF) of the German/Dutch organization DNW and in the shock
tunnel TH2 of the RWTH Aachen. The photographs with the temperature
sensitive liquid crystal image were prepared by the Institute of Aerospace
Engineering at the RWTH Aachen and show the transition of the boundary
layer ow from laminar to turbulent at the leeward side of the shape, Fig.
7.24, [3, 21, 22].
In the following subsections the aerodynamic data of the ELAC conguration are considered.
Fig. 7.23. Two-Stage-to-Orbit conguration ELAC/EOS, [20]
7.3.1
The shape of the ELAC conguration is relatively simple, but was allowing
for all research objects of the various scientic projects. It consists of a delta
6
The SFBs were at the RWTH Aachen, the Technical University Munich together
with the University of the Armed Forces (Uni BW) and the University Stuttgart,
all with participation of institutes of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), see
[3, 19].
320
Fig. 7.24.
ELAC model of 1:12 scale in the Large Low Speed Facility
(LLF) of DNW, Germany/The Netherlands (left). Schlieren photograph of the
ELAC model in the shock tunnel TH2 of the RWTH Aachen, [3, 22]. Test
conditions M = 7.9, ho = 2.4 M J/kg, = 0 (right).
Fig. 7.25. ELAC model of 1:100 scale in the low speed wind tunnel of the
Institute of Aerospace Engineering of the RWTH Aachen. Free-stream velocity
V = 50 m/s, Re = 2.42 106 . Temperature sensitive liquid crystal photographs
on the leeward side visualizing the laminar-turbulent transition process
(blue = laminar ow; yellow/green = turbulent ow). Angle of attack
= 0 (left), angle of attack = 4 (right), [21].
wing form featuring rounded leading edges and a sweep angle of 75 . The
reference length amounts to 72 m and the span to 38.6 m. The aspect ratio is
1.1. The cross-sections are made up of two half ellipses with an axis ratio of
1.4 for the upper part and 1.6 for the lower part of the shape. The maximum
thickness of 5.36 m is reached at two thirds of the body length, [20, 21, 23].
Fig. 7.26 shows the engineering drawings of the ELAC conguration.
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
321
Fig. 7.26. Shape denition of ELAC conguration, engineering drawings with

dimensions, [21]
322
7.3.2
The aerodynamic data base of the ELAC conguration was essentially established by tests in wind tunnels. The Mach numbers covered the range from
very low supersonic (M < 0.1) to hypersonic (M = 7.9) ones. Particular
attention was payed to low subsonic ow (M 0.145). There, intensive
scientic work was conducted in order to reveal the eect of the Reynolds
number on the surface pressure distributions and the aerodynamic coecients. The investigated Reynolds numbers in the low speed regime range
between 3.7 106 Re 40 106 , [21, 23, 24].
Longitudinal Motion
As mentioned above for the low speed regime wind tunnel experiments, but
also numerical ow eld computations were performed in order to investigate
the inuence of the Reynolds number on the longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic coecients. The outcome of this investigation was that of course a
slight Reynolds number dependency in this Mach number regime exists, but
this does not change the general characteristics of the aerodynamic behavior
of the ELAC conguration.
In the following four gures (Figs. 7.27 - 7.30) the aerodynamic coecients
with respect to the low speed regime (M 0.145) are presented. The lift
coecient CL shows the typical behavior of a delta wing, where a moderate
non-linearity is generated when due to increasing angle of attack lee-side vortices arise, Fig. 7.27. Figs. 7.28 shows the drag coecient CD . The minimum
drag value with CD 0.007 ensues around 3 . The aerodynamic performance L/D reaches its maximum with L/D 11 for an angle of attack
8 , Figs. 7.29.
Static stability is secured for the longitudinal movement as the pitching
moment diagram shows, Fig. 7.30. Moreover, for the moment reference point
of xref = 0.5 Lref the vehicle can be trimmed at 4 . Interesting is
the change of the gradient Cm / at 10 of the pitching moment. A
possible explanation could be the incipient generation of the leeward side
vortices, which cause this pitch-up of the vehicle.
The next four gures (Figs. 7.31 - 7.34) show the aerodynamic coecients
for the Mach number range 0.40 M 7.9. These data were found by tests
in the wind tunnel of the RWTH Aachen (M = 0.4, 0.6, 0.83, 1.5, 2, 2.50),
the wind tunnel of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
(ITAM) of the Russian Academy of Science in Novosibirsk (M = 6) and
the shock tunnel TH2 of the RWTH Aachen (M = 7.9), [22, 25, 26].
The measured angles of attack lie between 2 10 . All the curves
of the lift coecient show for this angle of attack regime a nearly linear
behavior, which means that the generation of the leeward side vortices do
not play a role yet. The general tendency for delta wing like congurations
is, that CL / increases from subsonic speed on to a maximum at transonic
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
323
1.2
M=0.145
1
lift coefficient C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
Fig. 7.27. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for the free-stream
velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 , [21, 23]
M=0.145
drag coefficient C
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
Fig. 7.28. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for the freestream velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 , [21, 23]
324
12
M=0.145
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40
free-stream velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 , [21, 23]
0.1
M=0.145
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
5
10
15
20
25
angle of attack
30
35
40

for the free-stream velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 , [21, 23].
Moment reference point xref = 0.5 Lref .
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
325
speed in order to then decrease to a minimum at hypersonic speed, Fig. 7.31.

This can also be observed for the SAENGER conguration, see Section 7.2.
For the moderate angles of attack considered here the drag coecient CD
has relatively low values, Fig. 7.32. The minimal values occur in the angle
of attack regime 1 4 . The lowest one with CD 0.07 is given for
M = 0.4 and 0.6 at 3 , compare also with Fig. 7.28.
In subsonic ow the drag is lowest and the lift relatively high. Both has
the eect that the lift-to-drag ratio L/D is highest there. It reaches a value
of L/Dmax 10.5 at an angle of attack 7 , Fig. 7.33.
Static stability of the longitudinal motion with respect to the moment
reference point xref = 0.5 Lref is assured for all Mach numbers, but the
negative gradient of the pitching moment Cm / decreases with increasing Mach number indicating a stability reduction, Fig. 7.34. Also trim is
possible for all free-stream velocities. The trim angle of attack ranges from
2.5 (subsonic) to 7 (hypersonic).
0.3
0.25
lift coefficient C
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.83
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=2.50
M=6.00
M=7.90
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
2
4
6
angle of attack
10
12
Fig. 7.31. Lift coecient CL as function of the angle of attack for various Mach
numbers, [22, 25]
Lateral Motion
Aerodynamic coecients for the lateral motions are only available for subsonic speed with V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), [21]. In Fig. 7.35 the side force
coecient CY is plotted versus the angle of yaw . With increasing angle of
326
0.05
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.83
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=2.50
M=6.00
M=7.90
0.045
drag coefficient C
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2
4
6
angle of attack
10
12
Fig. 7.32. Drag coecient CD as function of the angle of attack for various
Mach numbers, [22, 25]
12
10
8
6
4
2
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.83
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=2.50
M=6.00
M=7.90
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
4
6
angle of attack
10
12
Fig. 7.33. Lift-to-drag ratio L/D as function of the angle of attack for various
Mach numbers, [22, 25]
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
327
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
2
M=0.40
M=0.60
M=0.83
M=1.50
M=2.00
M=2.50
M=6.00
M=7.90
0
4
6
angle of attack
10
12

for various Mach numbers, [22, 25]. Moment reference point xref = 0.5Lref .
yaw the negative side force increases essentially due to the dierent pressure
distributions at the windward and the leeward sides of the ns (winglets).
This eect is true for small angles of attack, as can be seen for = 0 and
10 . When the angle of attack rises, a second eect inuencing the side force
comes into play. The pressure distribution at the rearward part of the fuselage of ELAC generates due to the enforced development of the leeward side
vortices a side force component, which acts in the opposite direction of the
n-induced side force, see the curve progression for = 20 in Fig. 7.35.
ELAC features a rolling moment Cl with a negative gradient Cl /,
which increases with increasing angle of attack, Fig. 7.36. Such a rolling
moment behavior is desired since the vehicle after a disturbance has the
tendency to automatically return to the level ight. The physical explanation
is that when the body xed x-axis and the direction of the free-stream velocity
vector do not coincide (that is true when and/or > 0) a restoring rolling
moment Cl is generated, [27, 28], see also Fig. 7.377 .
The ELAC conguration is directional stable (weathercock stability). The
diagram of the yawing moment coecient Cn as function of the yawing angle
shows a positive gradient Cn / and only a low angle of attack dependency, Fig. 7.38. For a positive yaw stiness coecient Cn / the side force
7
Note that in this gure the moment reference point is xref = 0.65 Lref . But this
does not change substantially the rolling moment characteristics.
328
must be negative (Fig. 7.35) and the line of action of this force must lie behind
the reference point, which apparently is given in this case. A change of the
moment reference point from xref = 0.50 Lref to xref = 0.65 Lref obviously
has the consequence that Cn / is no longer nearly constant, Fig. 7.39.
0.02
= 0
= 10
= 20
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0
8
angle of yaw
12
16
Fig. 7.35. Side force coecient CY as function of the yaw angle for three angles
of attack , [21]. Free-stream velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.8 106 .
7.3.3
7.3 ELAC (Germany)
329
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
= 0
= 10
= 20
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
8
angle of yaw
12
16
Fig. 7.36. Rolling moment coecient Cl as function of the yaw angle for three
angles of attack , [21]. Moment reference point xref = 0.5 Lref . Free-stream velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.8 106 .
0
= 0
roll stiffness coefficient Cl
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 7.37. Roll stiness coecient Cl in [1/ ] as function of the angle of attack
, [21]. Moment reference point xref = 0.65 Lref . Free-stream velocity V = 50
m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 .
330
0.08
= 0
= 10
= 20
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0
6
8
10
angle of yaw
12
14
16
three angles of attack , [21]. Moment reference point xref = 0.5 Lref . Free-stream
velocity V = 50 m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.8 106 .
0.01
yaw stiffness coefficient Cn
0.009
= 0
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
5
10
15
20
angle of attack
25
30
Fig. 7.39. Yaw stiness coecient Cn in [1/ ] as function of the angle of attack
, [21]. Moment reference point xref = 0.65 Lref . Free-stream velocity V = 50
m/s (M 0.145), Re = 3.7 106 .
References
331
References
Heidelberg (2011)
3. Jacob, D., Sachs, G., Wagner, S. (eds.): Basic Research and Technologies for
Two-Stage-To-Orbit Vehicles. Wiley-Vch-Verlag, Weinheim (2005)
4. Hirschel, E.H.: The Hypersonic Technology Development and Verication
Strategy of the German Hypersonic Technology Programme. AIAA-Paper No.
93-5072 (1993)
5. Hirschel, E.H., Hornung, H.G., Mertens, J., Oertel, H., Schmidt, W.: Summary
of the principal features and results of the BMFT study entitled: Determining
Key Technologies as Starting Points for German Industry in the Development
of Future Supersonic Transport Aircraft with a View to Possible Hypersonic
Aircraft Projects. Final Report of the Study Group on Aerothermodynamics,
BMFT Ref. No. LFF9694/8681 and LFF8682 (1987)
6. Kuczera, H., Krammer, P., Sacher, P.: SANGER

and the German Hypersonic
Technology Programme. IAF Congress Montreal, Paper No. IAF-91-198 (1991)
7. Krogmann, P., Sch
oler, H.: Windkanalversuche zur Sichtbarmachung des
Str
omungsfeldes und der W
armeuverteilung an der SANGER
Konguration
bei Mach 6.8. DFVLR Internal Report: IB - 222-88 C18 (1988)
8. Esch, H.: Kraftmessungen an einem 1:160 Modell des MBB - SANGER
Konzepts im Uberschall.
DLR Internal Report: IB - 39113 - 89A03 (1989)

Konzepts bei Ma = 6 im Hyperschallkanal H2K. DLR Internal Report: IB
- 39113 - 89A08 (1989)
Konzepts im Trisonikkanal TMK. DLR Internal Report: IB - 39113 - 90A05
(1990)
11. Kraus, M.: Aerodynamische Datens

atze f
ur die Konguration SANGER
4-92
(Aerodynamic Data Set for the SANGER

Conguration 4-92). Technical Report: DASA-LME211-TN-HYPAC-290, Dasa, M
unchen/Ottobrunn, Germany
(1992)
12. Weiland, C.: FESTIP Technology: Aerothermodynamics. Final Presentation,
ESTEC Noordwijk (March 1997)
13. Schr
oder, W., Behr, R., Menne, S.: Analysis of Hypersonic Flow Around Space
Transportation Systems via CFD Methods. AIAA-Paper No. 93-5067 (1993)
14. Schr
oder, W., Behr, R.: 3D Hypersonic Flow Over a Two-Stage Spacecraft.
SPACE COURSE, Paper No. 14. Technical University of Munich, Germany
(October 1993)
15. Weiland, C.: Stage Separation Aerothermodynamics. AGARD-R-813, pp. 11111-28 (1996)
332
16. Esch, H.: Kraftmessungen zur Stufentrennung am MBB-SANGER

Konzept bei
Ma = 6 im Hyperschallkanal H2K. DLR Internal Report: IB - 39113 - 90C18
(1990)
17. Schr
oder, W., Mergler, F.: Investigation of the Floweld over Parallel-Arranged
Launch Vehicles. AIAA-Paper No. 93-3060 (1993)
18. Hirschel, E.H.: The Technology Development and Verication Concept of the
German Hypersonic Technology Programme. Dasa-LME12-HYPAC-STY-0017A, Dasa Ottobrunn, Germany (1995)
19. Krause, E.: German University Research in Hypersonics. AIAA-Paper 92-5033
(1992)
20. Raible, T., Jacob, D.: Evaluation and Multidisciplinary Optimzation of TwoStage-to-Orbit Space Planes with Dierent Lower-Stage Concepts. In: Jacob,
D., Sachs, G., Wagner, S. (eds.) Basic Research and Technologies for TwoStage-To-Orbit Vehicles. Wiley-Vch-Verlag, Weinheim (2005)
21. Decker, F.: Experimentelle und Theoretische Untersuchungen zur Aerodynamik
der Hyperschallkonguration ELAC-1 im Niedergeschwindigkeitsbereich (Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of the Aerodynamics of the Hypersonic Conguration ELAC-1 in Subsonic Flow). Doctoral Thesis, Institute
of Aerospace Engineering, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1996. Cuvillier Verlag,
G
ottingen (1997)
22. Bleilebens, M., Gl
ossner, C., Olivier, H.: High Speed Aerodynamics of the TwoStage ELAC/EOS-Conguration for Ascent and Re-entry. In: Jacob, D., Sachs,
G., Wagner, S. (eds.) Basic Research and Technologies for Two-Stage-To-Orbit
Vehicles. Wiley-Vch-Verlag, Weinheim (2005)
23. Neuwerth, G., Peiter, U., Jacob, D.: Low Speed Tests with an ELAC-Model
at High Reynolds Numbers. In: Jacob, D., Sachs, G., Wagner, S. (eds.) Basic
Research and Technologies for Two-Stage-To-Orbit Vehicles. Wiley-Vch-Verlag,
Weinheim (2005)
24. Neuwerth, G., Peiter, U., Decker, F., Jacob, D.: Reynolds Number Eects
on Low-Speed Aerodynamics of the Hypersonic Conguration ELAC 1. J. of
Spacecraft and Rockets 36(2) (1999)
25. Schr
oder, W.: ELAC Aerodynamic Data. Private Communication, RWTH
Aachen, Germany (2012)
26. Henze, A., Schr
oder, W., Meinke, M.: Numerical Analysis of the Supersonic
Flow around Reusable Space Transportation Vehicles. ESA SP-487, pp. 191
197 (2002)
(1972)
Coordinate Systems
The coordinate systems used in aerodynamics and in ight mechanics as

well as the directions in which the aerodynamic forces are counted positive,
dier in the literature, but also from country to country and sometimes from
aerospace company to aerospace company.
Therefore aerodynamicists and aerospace engineers have to check in each
case precisely, which coordinate system is used and how the forces and moments are dened, [1] - [4].
We present in this chapter two often used coordinate frames including the
denitions of the force directions. The rst one is shown in Fig. 8.1 where
the body-xed coordinates xf , yf , zf and the air-path coordinates xa , ya , za
are plotted. In order not to overload this gure, we have drawn a second
one, Fig. 8.2, with the denitions of the force coecients CX , CY , CZ and
the moment coecients Cl , Cm , Cn in the body-xed system and of the force
coecients CD , CY a , CL in the air-path system. This frame is mostly applied
to winged ight vehicles like civil and military aircraft as well as to winged
space vehicles (RV-W, CAV).
The second frame, shown in Figs. 8.3 and 8.4, reects the situation often
given by the presentation of the aerodynamic data of non-winged space vehicles, like capsules, probes, blunted cones, etc. (RV-NW). As one can see the
denitions in Figs. 8.3 and 8.4 are given for a negative angle of attack . The
reason is, that for capsules a positive lift can only be achieved by negative
angles of attack. For the explanation of this fact see [2].
During project work the aerospace engineer often has to change between
the body-xed and the air-path systems. We know that in general this should
not be a problem, but during the daily work it is frequently not clear if the
signs of the various terms of the transformation equations are correct. For that
reason we present for both of the above frames the transformation equations
in full.
We consider the transformation of the aerodynamic coecients CD , CY a ,
CL of the air-path system with respect to the aerodynamic coecients
CX , CY , CZ given in the body-xed system on the basis of the denitions
in Figs. 8.1 and 8.2. A left-handed rotation around the za axis with the angle

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54168-1_8,
333
334
8 Coordinate Systems
Fig. 8.1. Denition of the coordinate frame often used for winged aerospace
vehicles, [2, 3]. Body-xed system (xf , yf , zf ), air-path system (xa , ya , za ).
Fig. 8.2. Denition of the aerodynamic force and moment coecients for winged
aerospace vehicles with respect to the coordinate frame dened in Fig. 8.1, [2]
335
Fig. 8.3. Denition of the coordinate frame often used for non-winged space
vehicles, [2]. Body-xed system (xf , yf , zf ), air-path system (xa , ya , za ).
Fig. 8.4. Denition of the aerodynamic force and moment coecients for nonwinged space vehicles with respect to the coordinate frame dened in Fig. 8.3,
[2]
336
is followed by a right-handed rotation1 around the y = yf axis with the

angle . With the transformation matrix2
Mab = M M
cos 0 sin
cos sin 0
1
0 sin cos 0
= 0
sin 0 cos
0
0
1
cos cos cos sin sin

,
cos
0
= sin
sin cos sin sin cos
we obtain the relation
CD
CX
CY = Mab CY a ,
CZ
CL
(8.1)
or after resolving the eq. (8.1)

CX = CD cos cos CY a cos sin + CL sin ,
CY = CD sin + CY a cos ,
(8.2)
CZ = CD sin cos CY a sin sin CL cos .

The inverse of this transformation can be determined by

CX
cos cos
CD
CY a = M 1 CY = cos sin
ab
CL
CZ
sin
sin sin cos

CX
cos sin sin CY ,
CZ
0
cos
(8.3)
where we have made use of the orthogonality property of the matrix Mab ,
1
T
viz. Mab
= Mab
. Finally we obtain
CD = CX cos cos CY sin CZ sin cos ,
CY a = CX cos sin + CY cos CZ sin sin ,
CL = CX sin CZ cos .
(8.4)
In the case of the coordinate frames of Figs. 8.3 and 8.4 the transformation
from body-xed to air-path coordinates reads
1
2
For the denitions of right-handed and left-handed rotations see [3].

Note that CD and CL are directed towards the negative xa and za axes. That is
the reason for the negative sign in eq. (8.1).
References
CD
CX
CY a = Mba CY ,
CL
CZ
337
(8.5)
with
Mba = M M
cos sin 0
cos 0 sin
1
0 ,
= sin cos 0 0
0
0
1
sin 0 cos
(8.6)
where M describes a right-handed rotation around the z axis and M a

right-handed rotation around the yf axis with the negative angle of attack
.
Finally we nd
CD =
CX cos cos + CY sin + CZ sin cos ,
CY a = CX cos sin + CY cos CZ sin sin ,

CL = CX sin + CZ cos .
The inverse of eq. (8.5) can be calculated by
CX
CD
T
CY = Mba
CY a ,
CZ
CL
CX = CD cos cos CY a cos sin CL sin ,
CY = CD sin + CY a cos ,
(8.7)
(8.8)
(8.9)
CZ = CD sin cos CY a sin sin + CL cos .

Comparing eq. (8.2) with eq. (8.9) and eq. (8.4) with eq. (8.7) reveals that
only the signs of some right-hand side terms are dierent. But just these signs
sometimes cause confusions.
References
1. American National Standards Institute. Recommended Practice for Atmosphere
and Space Flight Vehicle Coordinate Systems. American National Standard
ANSI/AIAA R-0004-1992 (1992)
(2010)
Appendix A
Wind Tunnels
In the following the wind tunnels are listed, which were used for parts of the
establishment of the aerodynamic data sets of the space vehicles considered
in this book.
Table A.1. Wind tunnels in Germany referred to in this book
Wind tunnel Institution
Location
Country
Flow regime
Page
TMK
DLR
Cologne
Germany
sub-,trans-,
supersonic
144
H2K
DLR
Cologne
Germany
cold
hypersonic
144
NWB
DLR
low
subsonic
235
TWG
DLR
G
ottingen
Germany
sub-,trans-,
low supersonic
235
HEG
DLR
G
ottingen
Germany
shock tube
high enthalpy
59
TH2
University
of Aachen
Aachen
Germany
ILR
University
of Aachen
Aachen
Germany
Braunschweig Germany
shock tube
235 319
medium enthalpy
low
subsonic
322
340
Appendix A : List of Wind Tunnels

Table A.2. Wind tunnels in USA referred to in this book
Wind tunnel
Institution
Location
Country Flow regime Page
LaRC 20 Inch
M = 6
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
cold
hypersonic
103, 200
LaRC 31 Inch
M = 10
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
cold
hypersonic
103, 200
LaRC CF4
M = 6
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
hypersonic
103, 200
LaRC
8-Foot
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
transonic
112
LaRC
14-by-22 Foot
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
subsonic
211
LaRC
16-Foot
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
transonic
211
LaRC
Unitary Plan WT
NASA
Langley
Hampton
Virginia
(USA)
supersonic
211
HFFAF1
Unitary Plan WT
NASA
Ames
gun tunnel
104, 105
Mountain View California

(USA)
Table A.3. Wind tunnels in France referred to in this book
Wind tunnel
Institution
Location
S4
ONERA
Modane
France
F4
ONERA
Le Fauga
France

cold
hypersonic
179
high enthalpy 59, 101
HFFAF Hypervelocity Free-Flight Aerodynamic Facility.
Appendix A : List of Wind Tunnels
341
Table A.4. Wind tunnels in The Netherlands referred to in this book
Wind tunnel Institution Location
Country
Flow regime Page
HST
NLR
Amsterdam The Netherlands
sub-,trans-, 81, 235

low supersonic
SST
NLR
Amsterdam The Netherlands
supersonic
81, 235
LLF
DNW2
Emmeloord The Netherlands
low
subsonic
235, 319
Table A.5. Wind tunnels in Russia referred to in this book
Wind tunnel
Institution
Location
T-313
ITAM
Novosibirsk
Russia
supersonic
166, 322
AT-303
ITAM
Novosibirsk
Russia
hypersonic
166, 322
Table A.6. Wind tunnel in Belgium referred to in this book

Wind tunnel
S1
Institution
Location
VKI
Brussels
DNW is a German - Dutch organisation.

Belgium
transonic
81
Appendix B
Abbreviations, Acronyms
ADB
AEDC
AFE
ALFLEX
APOLLO
AOTV
ARD
ASTRA
ASTV
ARIANE V
BEAGLE2
BURAN
CARINA
CAV
CFD
CIRA
COLIBRI
CMC
CRV
CTV
DARPA
DC-X
DC-XA
DLR
EHTV
ELAC
EOS
ESA
ESTEC
EXPERT
Aerodynamic Data Base

Arnold Engineering Development Center (United States)
Aeroassisted Flight Experiment (United States - Europe)
Automatic Landing FLight EXperiment (Japan)
Capsule, rst Moon landing (United States)
Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle
Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator (Europe)
Selected systems and technologies for future
space transportation applications (Germany)
Aeroassisted Space Transfer Vehicle
Rocket launcher for heavy payloads (Europe)
Small Mars lander (Great Britain)
Winged re-entry vehicle (Soviet Union/Russia)
Capsule conguration of a ight demonstrator (Italy)
Cruise and Acceleration Vehicle
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Aerospace research organization (Italy)
Blunted cone conguration of a ight demonstrator
(Germany)
Ceramic Matrix Composite
Crew Rescue Vehicle
Crew Transport Vehicle
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
(United States)
Delta Clipper EXperimental (United States)
Delta Clipper EXperimental Advanced (United States)
German Aerospace Center
European Hypersonic Transport Vehicle
TSTO technology demonstrator study (Germany)
ELAC Orbital Stage, upper stage of ELAC (Germany)
European Space Agency
European Space Research and Technology Center
(The Netherlands)
European EXPerimental Re-entry Testbed
344
Appendix B: Abbreviations, Acronyms
FESTIP
FOTON
GEMINI
GEO
GNC
GPS
GTO
HALIS
HERMES
HOPE
HOPE-X
HOPPER
HORUS
HOTOL
HUYGENS
HYFLEX
HYPER-X
IBU
INKA
IRDT
IRS
ISS
ITAM
JAXA
KHEOPS
LEO
MAJA
MERCURY
MIGAKS
MIR
MSRO
MSTP
MTFF
NASA
NASP
NEAT
NLR
NPO
OMS
ONERA
Future European Space Transportation Investigation

Programme
Rocket launcher (Soviet Union/Russia)
Capsule conguration (United States)
Circular GEosynchronized Orbit
Guidance Navigation and Control
Global Positioning System
Geostationary Transfer Orbit
simplied SPACE SHUTTLE Orbiter conguration
Winged re-entry vehicle (Europe)
H-II Orbiting PlanE (Japan)
Redesigned HOPE system (Japan)
SSTO system concept (Europe)
Upper stage of TSTO system SAENGER (Germany)
Horizontal Take-O and Landing concept (Great Britain)
Titan probe (Europe)
Hypersonic FLight EXperiment (Japan)
Testbed for scramjet demonstration ights (United States)
Inatable Braking Unit, part of IRDT (Russia)
Congurational study of bent bicone shape (Germany)
Inatable Re-entry Demonstrator Technology
(Russia - Germany)
Institute for space systems, Stuttgart (Germany)
International Space Station
Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics,
Novosibirsk (Russia)
Japans space agency (former NASDA)
Congurational study in the frame of EXPERT program
(Europe)
Low Earth Orbit
Subscale experimental vehicle of HERMES (Europe)
Capsule conguration (United States)
TSTO system concept (Russia)
Space station of Soviet Union/Russia
Mars Sample Return Orbiter (Europe)
Manned Space Transportation Programme (Europe)
Manned Tended Free Flyer (Columbus module) (Europe)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(United States)
National AeroSpace Plane Program (United States)
North European Aerospace Test Range (Sweden)
National aerospace laboratory (The Netherlands)
Lavoschkin, Russian space research organization
Orbital Maneuvering System
National aerospace research center (France)
Appendix B: Abbreviations, Acronyms
OREX
PHOENIX
PREPHA
PRORA
REV
RLV
RCS
RV-NW
RV-W
SAENGER
SALYUT
SHEFEX
SOYUZ
SPACE
SHUTTLE
SPUTNIK
STARDUST
STAR-H
SSTO
TPS
TSTO
TSAGI
TSNIIMASH
USV
VIKING
VIKING-type
VKI
VOLNA
X-24A
X-33
X-34
X-37
X-38
X-40
X-43
X-51A
Orbital Re-entry Eperiment (Japan)

Flight demonstrator for the SSTO system HOPPER
(Germany)
TSTO system concept (France)
Aerospace research program (Italy)
Conguration as part of the EXPERT project (Europe)
Reusable Launch Vehicle
Reaction Control System
Re-entry Vehicle Non-Winged
Re-entry Vehicle Winged
TSTO system study (Germany)
Space station of Soviet Union/Russia
SHarp Edge Flight EXperiment (Germany)
Capsule, transporter to and from ISS
(Soviet Union/Russia)
Winged re-entry vehicle (United States)
Capsule, rst orbital ight (Soviet Union)
Space probe (United States)
TSTO system concept (France)
Single-Stage-To-Orbit
Thermal Protection System
Two-Stage-To-Orbit
Russian research institute for aerospace applications
Russian aerospace research institute
Unmanned Space Vehicle (Italy)
Mars probe (United States)
Capsule conguration of a system study (Europe)
von K`arm`an institute, Brussels (Belgium)
Rocket launcher (Russia)
Demonstrator vehicle (United States)
Crew rescue vehicle for ISS (United States - Europe)
345
Name Index
Adamov, N. P. 170
Aiello, M. 298
Akimoto, T. 119, 298
Alter, S. J. 296
An, M. Y. 118
Aoki, T. 298
Arrington, J. P. 296
Chanetz, B. 120
Charbonnier, J. M. 120
Chen, Y. K. 119
Collinet, J. 119
Colovin, J. E. 121
Courty, J. C. 300
Curry, D. M. 121
Baglioni, P. 169
Baillion, M. 119, 121
Bando, T. 119
Barth, T. 299
Behr, R. 297, 298, 331
Berry, S. A. 296
Bertin, J. J. 118
Best, J. T. 296
Blackstock, T. A. 169
Blanchet, D. 120
Bleilebens, M. 332
Bonetti, D. 299
Borrelli, S. 299
Borriello, G. 120
Bouilly, J. M. 118
Bouslog, S. A. 118, 121
Brauckmann, G. J. 297
Brockhaus, R. 21, 298, 332, 337
Brodetskay, M. D. 170
Br
uck, S. 296
Buhl, W. 298
Burkhart, J. 169
Burnell, S. I. 119
Davies, C. B. 169
De Zaiacomo, G. 299
Decker, F. 332
Decker, K. 297
Dieudonne, W. 120
Caillaud, J. 121
Campbell, C. H. 297
Caporicci, M. 299
Capuano, A. 120, 299
Caram, J. M. 118, 297
Cervisi, R. T. 297
Eggers, T. 299
Erre, A. 120
Esch, H. 169, 298, 331, 332
Etkin, B. 21, 298, 332
Felici, F. 118
Finchenko, V. 169
Fitzgerald, S. 297
Fossati, F. 299
Fraysse, H. 120
Fuhrmann, H. D. 297
Fujiwara, T. 119
Gasbarri, P. 120
Giese, P. 298
Gl
oner, Ch. 332
Gockel, W. 298
Goergen, J. 297
Goodrich, W. D. 118
Graciona, J. 119
Grallert, H. 299
Grith, B. F. 296
G
ulhan, A. 297, 299
Gupta, R. N. 119
348
Name Index
H
aberle, J. 298
Hagmeijer, R. 119, 120
Haidinger, F. A. 169
Hartmann, G. 120, 296, 300
Heinrich, R. 298
Helms, V. T. 169
Henze, A. 332
Hirschel, E. H. 7, 21, 39, 118, 169,
296, 298, 299, 331, 332, 337
His, S. 118
Hollis, B. R. 296
Hornung, H. G. 331
H
orschgen, M. 299
Horvath, T. J. 296
Hughes, J. E. 118
Ili, K. W. 296
Inoue, Y. 119
Isakowitz, S. J. 296
Ishimoto, S. 298
Ito, T. 119
Ivanov, N. M. 118, 169
Jacob, D. 331, 332
Janovsky, R. 298
Jategaonkar, R. 298
Jones, J. J. 296
Jones, T. V. 119
Jung, G. 169
Jung, W. 299
Kassing, D. 169
Kharitonov, A. M. 170
Kilian, J. M. 120
Kok, J. C. 120
Kordulla, W. 118, 170
Kouchiyama, J. 298
Krammer, P. 331
Kraus, M. 21, 331
Krause, E. 332
Krogmann, P. 331
Kruse, R. L. 120
Kuczera, H. 7, 39, 118, 296, 331
Labbe, S. G. 297
Lafon, J. 299
Laux, T. 299
Le Sant, Y. 120
Lee, D. B. 118
Leplat, M. 120
Li, C. P. 297
Liever, P. 119
Longo, J. M. A.
297, 299
Macret, J. L. 118
Madden, C. B. 297
Manley, D. J. 297
Manseld, A. C. 121
Marini, M. 21, 299
Marraa, L. 119, 169
Martin, L. 296
Martino, J. C. 118
Marzano, A. 120
Masson, A. 120
Matthews, A. J. 119
Maus, J. R. 296
Mazhul, I. I. 170
Mazoue, F. 119
McGhee, R. J. 120
Mehta, R. C. 119
Meinke, M. 332
Menne, S. 120, 169, 296, 300, 331
Mergler, F. 332
Mertens, J. 331
Micol, J. R. 120
Midden, R. E. 169
Miller, C. G. 169
Molina, R. 297, 299
Monnoyer, F. 300
Mooij. E. 118
Moore, R. H. 118
Moseley, W. C. 118
Moss, J. N. 119
Mueller, S. R. 121
Mundt, Ch. 300
Murakami, K. 119
Murphy, K. J. 296
Muylaert, J. 118, 170
Neuwerth, G. 332
Northey, D. 170
Nowak, R. J. 296
Oertel, H.
Olivier, H.
Olynick, D.
Oskam, B.
Ottens, H.
331
332
R. 119
120
170
Palazzo, S.
21, 299
Name Index
Pallegoix, J. F. 119
Pamadi, B. N. 297
Paris, S. 120
Park, C. 169
Parnaby, G. 119
Paulat, J. C. 118, 119, 170
Peiter, U. 332
Pelc, R. E. 120
Pelissier, Ch. 120
Perez, L. F. 297
Ptzner, M. 120, 169, 300
Pilchkhadze, K. 169
Pot, T. 120
Prabhu, R. K. 296, 297
Preaud, J.-Ph. 21
Price, J. M. 119
Radespiel, R. 296, 298
Raible, Th. 332
Ramos, R. H. 299
Rapuc, M. 297, 299, 300
Reimer, T. 299
Requart, G. 299
Riley, C. J. 296
Riley, D. 170
Rives, J. 120
Rochelle, W. C. 121
Rolland, J. Y. 118
Roncioni, P. 21, 299
Rufolo, G. C. 21, 299
Russo, G. 299
Ruth, M. J. 297
Sacher, P. 7, 39, 118, 296, 331
Sachs, G. 331, 332
Sakamoto, Y. 298
Sammonds, R. I. 120
Sansone, A. 120
Sch
oler, H. 331
Schadow, T. O. 121
Schettino, A. 299
Schmidt, W. 331
Schr
oder, W. 120, 300, 331, 332
Scott, C. D. 121
Serpico, M. 299
Shafer, M. F. 296
Siebe, F. 299
Siemers, P. M. 120, 121
349
Smith, A. J. 119, 169

Solazzo, M. 120
Spel, M. 120
Stamminger, A. 299
Staszak, P. R. 297
Stojanowski, M. 298
Tam, L. T. 118
Tarfeld, F. 297, 298
Tauber, M. E. 119
Thompson, R. A. 296
Throckmorton, D. A. 296
Ting, P. C. 121
Tournebize, F. 119
Traineau, J. C. 120
Tran, P. 119, 121
Tsujimoto, T. 298
Turner, J. 299
Uselton, B. L.
121
Vancamberg, Ph. 300

Vasenyov, L. G. 170
Venkatapathy, E. 120
Verant, J. L. 120
Votta, R. 21, 299
Wagner, A. 298
Wagner, S. 331, 332
Walpot, L. 170
Walther, S. 169
Wang, K. C. 118
Weber, C. 297
Weihs, H. 299
Weiland, C. 7, 21, 39, 118120, 169,
296, 297, 299, 300, 331, 337
Wells, W. L. 120
Whitlock, C. H. 121
Wilde, D. 169
Wong, H. 170
Wood, W. A. 296
Yamamoto, Y. 119
Yates, L. A. 120
Yoshioka, M. 119
Zorn, Ch. 298
Zvegintsev, V. I.
170
Subject Index
A
Aeroassisted
ight 37
Flight Experiment 101
Orbital Transfer Vehicle 101
Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicle
138
Aerocapturing 103
Aerodynamic
derivatives 14
model 15
performance 24
Aerodynamic control
body ap 172, 186, 198, 202, 209,
222, 225, 243, 267, 281, 287
central n 283
elevon 172, 186, 209, 270, 281, 287
ap 281
rudder 172, 281, 283
speed-brake 172
vertical tail 198
Aerospike engine 173, 198, 217
Aerospike rocket 37
AFE 1, 26
Air-launch 208
Airbreathing propulsion 37
ALFLEX 76
APOLLO 1, 23, 26, 43, 58, 154
Approximate design method 112, 124,
132, 305
ARD 1, 26, 58
ARIANE V 58, 280
Autonomous landing 240
B
Ballistic
24, 26
entry 66
factor 66
ight 78, 159
probe 67
range facility 117
Balloon 269
Base drag 78, 273
Base ow 270, 281
BEAGLE2, 1, 26, 70
BENT-BICONE 1, 30, 123, 138
Bicone 1, 30, 123
BLUFF-BICONE 1, 30, 123
Boat-tailing 223
BURAN 2, 176
features 172
system 172
C
Capsule 1, 24
features 171
CARINA 1, 23, 26, 96
Cassini
Orbiter 66
Saturn Orbiter 66
Center-of-gravity 42, 50, 86, 98, 126,
133, 139, 154, 186, 225, 235, 240,
243, 244, 275
Center-of-pressure 42, 227
Coecient
aerodynamic 10
aerothermodynamic 10
axial force CX , 13
drag CD , 13
lift CL , 13
normal force CZ , 13
pitching moment Cm , 13
rolling moment Cl , 13
352
Subject Index
side force CY , 13
side force CY a , 13
yawing moment Cn , 13
COLIBRI 1, 31, 142
Composite structure 208
Cone 1, 30, 123
Coordinate system 333
air-path 11
body-xed 11
Coordinates
air-path 333
body-xed 333
Crew rescue vehicle 18, 123, 173, 220
Crew transport vehicle 138
Cross derivative 15
Cross-range
capability 24, 30, 76, 123, 171, 220
capacity 302
margin 302
Crossover 202
DC-XA 207
De-orbiting 149, 217, 238
Delta wing 176, 200, 270, 282, 305,
309, 320
Dihedral 15, 159, 202, 208, 248, 270,
305
Drop test 76, 221
Dynamic behavior 95, 233
Dynamic derivative 48, 53, 57, 61
Dynamic instability 48, 61, 117
GEMINI 43, 96
Geostationary transfer orbit 179
Geosynchronized orbit 179
Global positioning system GPS 3, 208
Gravity assist 66
Guidance, navigation and control GNC
67, 76, 142, 217
E
Earth
atmosphere 76, 103, 174
orbit 43, 51, 101, 103, 174
ELAC 3, 23, 38, 319
Emissivity coecient 305
Euler equations 59, 62, 81, 98, 126,
144, 151, 163, 179, 211, 221, 235,
238, 270, 281, 305
European Hypersonic Transport
Vehicle EHTV 303
EXPERT 1, 32, 159
Extra-terrestrial y-by 1
Facetted conguration 2, 33, 264

FESTIP 2, 173, 235
Flight
control 76, 269
control system 207
demonstration 76, 149, 166
demonstrator 3436, 207, 235, 269
hypersonic 53, 76, 101, 123, 149,
182, 238, 269, 303
orbital 173, 217
qualication 149
suborbital 58, 76
test 208, 217, 270
Fligth
mechanical system 302
Flow shadow 43, 58, 202, 209, 275,
283
Forced oscillation technique 117
Free oscillation technique 117
H
HALIS conguration 179
HERMES 2, 23, 33, 58, 80, 96, 159,
172, 179, 280, 305
HOPE 96
H-II Orbiting plane 76
HOPE-X 2, 33, 172, 186, 253
HOPPER 2, 37, 235
HORUS 303
HOTOL 2, 37, 173
HUYGENS 23, 26, 66
HYFLEX 76
Hypersonic aircraft 303
I
Inatable braking unit
149
Subject Index
International Space Station
174, 220
IRDT 1, 32, 149
ISS 51, 96, 172
18, 142,
modied 81
Numerical method 44, 58, 112, 281
Numerical solution 57, 62, 86, 126,
151, 154, 200, 202, 221, 307
O
K
KHEOPS
353
159
L
Launch
costs 172
Lift curve break 182, 211, 239
Lifting body 173, 198, 220
Loads
thermal 9
Local inclination method 124
Low Earth orbit 179
M
Mach number
independence 62, 105, 114, 127,
152, 182, 243, 287
MAIA 280
Mariner-Mark II Cassini 66
Mars 111, 123
atmosphere 70, 112
express 70
lander 70
orbit 111
Sample Return Orbiter 101
Mass 51, 67
capacity 179
gross 96
total 58, 142, 280
MIGAKS 3
MIR 51
Moon
landing 43
N
NASP 2, 96, 173, 207
Navier-Stokes equations 59, 64, 81,
82, 86, 98, 105, 163, 179, 200, 221,
233, 235, 238, 271, 281, 305
Newton method 43
limit 273
Orbital conguration 149

Orbital Maneuvering System
Orbital phase 217
OREX 1, 26, 76
Oryol program 3
174
P
Panel method 81, 124
Parachute system 1, 25, 30, 149
landing 49
Paraglider system 30, 149, 220, 223
Payload 23, 149, 174, 198, 253
bay 179
costs 172, 173
PHOENIX 2, 23, 33, 186, 235
Piggy-back 96, 142, 303
Pitch
damping 15, 157, 233
PREPHA 3
Probe 1, 24
PRORA 2, 19, 23, 33, 269
R
Radiation
adiabatic wall 305
cooling 159
Re-entry
atmospheric 269
capsule 142
conguration 264
demonstrator 58
ight 61, 159, 238, 269
gliding 280
mission 51
module 96
path 283
phase 78, 217
process 43, 49, 58, 76, 149, 174,
217, 264
technology 96
trajectory 76, 182
354
Subject Index
vehicle 138, 222, 253

Reaction control system RCS 171, 283
Real gas eect 10, 59, 104, 105, 202,
238, 281
Reusable
composite propellant tank 208
fully 198
launch vehicle 198, 207, 235
partly 172
space technology 173, 217
technology demonstrator 217
Rocket 51, 96, 124, 171, 176, 253
aerospike motor 198
ARIANE V 58, 280
Atlas V 173, 217
Fastrac engine 208
H-II 76
Orbital Maneuvering System 176
propulsion system 198
solid booster 174, 269
sounding 264
SOYUZ 51, 142
SOYUZ Fregat 70
system 301
VOLNA 159
Vukcain 2 motor 235
Roll
control 15
damping 15, 327
lateral force 15
motion 105, 202, 209, 227, 248, 255,
290
stiness 15, 313
S
SAENGER 3, 16, 23, 38, 173, 303
SALYUT 51
Semi-reusable concept , 174
SHEFEX 264
Single-Stage-To-Orbit 2, 25, 173, 198,
217, 302
Skin friction line 179, 281, 305
SLENDER-BICONE 1, 30, 123
Solid rocket booster 24
SOYUZ 1, 23, 26, 51, 154
orbital module 51
re-entry module 51
service module 51
Space
orbit 171, 173, 217, 238
SPACE SHUTTLE 23
Atlantis 174
Challenger 174
Columbia 174
Discovery 174
Endeavour 174
Enterprize 174
features 172
Orbiter 2, 33, 174, 208, 217, 253,
283
system 172, 174, 198, 301
Stability
directional 105, 144, 147, 190, 202,
209, 214, 227, 247, 260, 276
dynamic 13, 48, 53, 95, 117, 221
lateral 14
longitudinal 14
roll 147, 270, 275
static 13
Stage
lower 303, 305, 308, 319
upper 303, 308, 319
Stage separation 303, 308
STAR-H 3, 25
STARDUST 70
Sub-orbit 24
T
Tank
expendable 174
Terminal approach and landing 220
Testbed 96, 142, 159, 217
Thermal protection system TPS 76,
142, 149, 172, 208, 217, 264, 269
Trajectory
ight 78, 105, 217, 275
point 57, 70, 83, 86, 105, 126, 133,
144, 154, 243
suborbital 235
Trim 126, 133, 154, 186, 202, 211,
255, 275, 287, 312
angle 46, 53, 58, 60, 86, 101, 105,
142, 224, 325
behavior 43
ight 139, 244
line 86
Subject Index
parasite 43, 49
Two-Stage-To-Orbit
303, 308
X
2, 25, 173, 302,
V
Vehicle
cruise and acceleration CAV 23, 37
non-winged RV-NW 23, 25, 30
winged RV-W 23, 33
VIKING 1, 23, 26, 111
Orbiter 111
VIKING1, 111
VIKING2, 111
VIKING-type 1, 26, 80
VIKING1, 80
VIKING2, 80
Vortex 200, 211, 236, 271, 273, 305
X-24, 173
X-24A 220
X-33, 2, 33, 173, 198
X-34, 2, 33, 173, 207, 270
X-37, 2, 33, 173, 217
X-38, 2, 18, 33, 220
X-40, 217
Y
Yaw
control 15
damping 15
lateral force 15
stiness 15, 316, 327
W
Z
Waverider 264
Winglet 253, 260, 283
z-oset
86, 98, 135, 154
355

Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claus Weiland

Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles

Dr. Ing. Claus Weiland

Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Printed on acid-free paper

Aristotle: 384 - 322 B.C..

transformed to the relevant non-inertial coordinate systems, which could be,

January 24, 2014

The Discipline Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Classification and Project Data of Space Vehicles . . . . . . .

Aerodynamic Data of Non-Winged Re-entry Vehicles

4.3.2 Aerodynamic Data of Steady Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerothermodynamic Data of Non-Winged Re-entry

5.3 SLENDER-BICONE (Russia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerothermodynamic Data of Winged Re-entry Vehicles

6.6.3 Aerodynamic Data of Unsteady Motion . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aerothermodynamic Data of Cruise and Acceleration

Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Appendix A : Wind Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Short Historical Overview

1.1 Short Historical Overview

The TSTO systems consist in general of a lower stage, which transports

Milestones of Space Flight

The successful exploration of our planetary system requires more advanced

1957 SPUTNIK 1: rst ight in an Earth orbit,

1957 SPUTNIK 2: rst living creature,

3. Sept. 1959 LUNIK 2:

rst ight to the Moon, the

12. April 1961 WOSTOK 1: rst man in Earth orbit,

rst walk outside a capsule

1.2 Milestones of Space Flight

15. Dec. 1966 LUNA9:

20. July 1969 APOLLO 11:

rst probe passing the planet

ight to the Moon and rst

rst man on the Moon,

15.Dec. 1970 VERENA 7:

ight to the planet Venus and rst

19. April 1971 SALJUT 1:

rst space station in Earth orbit, UdSSR,

1973 PIONEER 10: rst probe passing the planet

1974 MARINER 10: rst probe passing the planet

1. Sept. 1979 PIONEER 11: rst probe passing the planet

24. Aug. 1989 VOYAGER 3:

rst ight of a winged

rst probe passing the planet

rst probe passing the planet

1997 PATHFINDER: ight to the planet Mars and rst

14. Jan. 2005 HUYGENS:

start of the installation of the

The Contents of the Book

semi-empirical design methods,

Of course, that is true for all aerospace vehicles.

The Discipline Aerodynamics

C. Weiland, Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles,

2 The Discipline Aerodynamics

In this book we only consider the aerodynamic coecients, although one

vibrational excitation of the molecules,

Steady or Unsteady Aerothermodynamics?